I love it when the US is criticized about not giving enough in aid by the UN and other self-serving non-profits. That the US is handily outdone by ideal countries like Norway, Denmark and what have you. But as I've pointed out before, that criticism is laid only again government aid. When you consider private aid as well, it shows Americans are VOLUNTARILY more charitable with their own money than any other nation. And don't get me started about how the US military effectively makes it so most of these European nations don't have to have one, effectively subsidizing them to donate aid.
So the next time somebody complains that the US doesn't donate enough aid, you can turn to them with this handy chart and say, "no, actually, we do."
20 comments:
"And don't get me started about how the US military effectively makes it so most of these European nations don't have to have one, effectively subsidizing them to donate aid."
This comment is based on the idea that a military is necessity. Many countries would disagree with this, and indeed many Americans too. It always interests me that countries with large standing always seem to find ways to use them (US in Iraq perhaps?) while everyone else just wishes they would have stayed at home.
where is this chart from? I want to get a copy to show my "bleeding-heart" friends that the US does care. And do try and counter all those in favor of that one.org campaign who think the US needs to give more.
I got it from Time Magazine.
I know, I know, I'm ashamed, but I was at the barber shop and that's all they had.
"It always interests me that countries with large standing always seem to find ways to use them (US in Iraq perhaps?) while everyone else just wishes they would have stayed at home."
No doubt the proudly anonymous commenter includes the denizens of the world ravaged by natural disasters that the United States military has, for the past century and more, aided of its own free will and volition. After all, if a floating hospital and water distillery is necessary, why not just send the UN?
Oh, that's RIGHT! You CAN'T! Guess those darned intrusive US military international relief efforts will just have to keep on going.
I think the criticism of charity is that most is given to colleges, the arts, and other (name on plaque or in the playbill) institutions.
Institutional charity, I believe it is called.
I'm a pretty extreme libertarian. I would be willing to describe public health care as "not a necessity". I would be willing to describe a public education system as "not a necessity". State sponsored welfare, anti-drug laws, any sort of impediments on freedom of expression, government funding for the arts, limitations of free trade, they all have one thing in common: they're probably not necessary.
In fact, with a few key exceptions, there is virtually nothing that must necessarily be done by the government. But one of those key exceptions is the military.
Don't get me wrong: I like the idea of being able to get rid of a large, in all likelihood inefficiently run, bureaucratic government agency such as the military. I just can't see a way of doing it successfully.
So pray tell: what am I missing here? How is it that I can imagine a fully functioning country without the aforementioned government programs, but if I try to imagine a country without a military all I see is a smoking crater? Explain to me how a military-less country would defend itself from threats both internal and external.
Anonymous here again.
Certainly some of the function that the military currently performs, such as "After all, if a floating hospital and water distillery is necessary, why not just send the UN?" as mahan pointed out is certainly worthwhile. I don't think anyone can argue that it isn't. My point is that you do not need a large standing military to perform those functions. If you wanted to create an organization specifically designed to do these worthwhile things, there is no real reason why they need to be wearing green and carry guns along with the medical supplies. You currently use the military because that's all you have; it's the most convenient.
There are many countries around the world that have survived and prospered without a significant military. If you can't imagine a country without a military as being anything other than a smoking crater I would suggest your don't have much of an imagination or haven't actually looked around the world very much.
I would suggest that one of the reasons the US needs a military is because it has a nasty habit of poking its nose in other peoples' business so often that, while with the best of intention, pisses people off so much that it needs a military to protect itself and accomplish the poking.
So much has changed since WW2. The US was so isolationist then the only reason it entered the war was because Japan forced it to. I'm always intrigued how WW2 raged for several years before the US decided to do something. This fact never seems to register in the American consciousness - only that America saved the day. Now the Americans are the exact opposite of isolationist.
I would argue that the majority of the rest of the world wimply wants the US to stay home and mind its own business. Of course this opinion isn't raised very often or loudly, mostly because of your large military, but it is very present. As the death toll in Iraq rises (Iraq is a tragedy for all involved, Iraq, the US, the Middle East, and really the whole world) I think many American are also wishing they would have just stayed home too.
Feel free to disagree with me, and call me all sorts of nasty names. It doesn't make me any less right.
"So pray tell: what am I missing here? How is it that I can imagine a fully functioning country without the aforementioned government programs, but if I try to imagine a country without a military all I see is a smoking crater? Explain to me how a military-less country would defend itself from threats both internal and external."
Private security. The US military crushed the Iraqi military in a matter of weeks or less (both times) with hardly a scratch. Now we're stuck fighting insurgents, and we've taken hundreds of times as many casualties against them as we did against the military supplied by the rather militaristic bunch Hussein was in charge of. What does that tell you about the relative effectiveness of private forces vs government armies?
Defense is cheap. Third world peasants can hurt first rate armies badly enough that they pick up their toys and go home. Countries that mind their own business and stay in their own borders (like Switzerland) don't make many enemies in the first place.
The question of whether you could have the sort of army the US has in a private setting is obvious; you couldn't. Sending a carrier battle group across the world to bomb a sandpit is not something that anyone who ever cared about costs would ever do. But that doesn't mean a country without that sort of military would just be easy pickings. Far from it.
All right, "Anonymous", time for a history lesson. It might even include your least favorite subject, the United States military!
However, before we begin, I challenge you to name a single organization in the world that can be onsite of a major natural disaster with the response time of the United States military, and the facilities included. I sure didn't see the UN, Red *Symbol*, OXfam or whatever it's called, etc. respond as fast to the tsunami (Remember that? Killed a lot of people that don't really like the US?) as the United States Navy. When the DID show up, of course, they tended to sit around and hold meetings and scratch their butts, at least in the case of the UN.
Oh, yes; the history lesson.
"There are many countries around the world that have survived and prospered without a significant military."
Denmark in 1940, for example.
Oh, WAIT! They DIDN'T! Unless, of course, one were to count six years of Nazi occupation as "prosperity"?
Iceland? Maybe you're thinking of Iceland. Which, of course, was a depndency of Denmark (I see a pattern) when it was essentially annexed for its own protection by the Allies in WWII. Perhaps you mean the South American nations? Last time I checked, they had militaries, all right, and fairly sizable ones to boot, but they're too busy rusting away or engaging in street warfare (or even possibly overthrowing their own governments; THERE's prosperity for you!).
How about Asia? Let's look there! The record of warfare that various modern Asian nations have engaged in with each other precludes THAT idea.
By the by, I'm assuming you want "modern" militaries, since that's what your vitriol seems to be aimed towards...
Oooo! Oooo! Your incorrect assumptions of the post! Hurrah!
"I would suggest that one of the reasons the US needs a military is because it has a nasty habit of poking its nose in other peoples' business so often that, while with the best of intention, pisses people off so much that it needs a military to protect itself and accomplish the poking."
Yes! Just like Belgium in the Congo! France in sub-Saharan and Saharan Africa! Britain, which managed to get everyone angry at it while STILL controlling 1/4 of the world with a tiny army, but a huge fleet! And the GRand Prize goes to...
GERMANY! Whose attitudes towards, oh, everyone made them SO beloved everywhere they tromped. Now, this may come as a genuine shock to you, O Uninformed and Ignorant One (that's not being nasty, merely factual), but the Big Bad Darth Vader United States, for almost half of the 20th Century, had an extremely small army!
*Gasps of horror and shock*
Yes! Moreover, in every place we have troops, and here's the funny part, they're there by invitation and/or treaty. ANY time S. Korea wants us out, we go. Same with Germany (personally, I recommend immediate evacuation, preferably to Poland who seems to like us better). Same thing ANYWHERE we have troops, even IRAQ!
Yes! That's right! The current Iraqi government asks us to go, we'll go. We're funny that way, but then, we DID voluntarily give up our colonial empire.
"So much has changed since WW2. The US was so isolationist then the only reason it entered the war was because Japan forced it to. I'm always intrigued how WW2 raged for several years before the US decided to do something. This fact never seems to register in the American consciousness - only that America saved the day. Now the Americans are the exact opposite of isolationist."
I advise you to look up the follwing terms:
Lend-Lease Act of March 11th, 1941Destroyers For Bases Agreement
Atlantic Charter
U.S.S. Reuben James sinking, 10/31/41
Yep. We sure were dragged into it kicking and screaming by those Japanese, all right.
"Of course this opinion isn't raised very often or loudly, mostly because of your large military, but it is very present."
I really need to contact my friends in the Navy and National Guard and inform them they now have a new mission; to intimidate anti-war types and the like. No doubt it's all part of their super-secret indoctrination they receive upon joining up. Take off the tinfoil hat and join the rest of us.
Anonymous,
You raise some good points. In fact, I agree with the majority of what you say about the US and the role it has taken as "world police". I think it would be wise for them to try to get back to something like what they were doing pre-WW2. Use their military to protect themselves, but not to get involved in foreign wars.
However, even in the pre-WW2 years, the US still had a military. It may not have been as big as it is now, and it almost certainly wasn't as active as it is now, but it was still there, just in case. "Speak softly and carry a big stick", as Theodore Roosevelt put it.
So if what you're advocating is the US withdrawing its troops from Iraq (and Afghanistan and wherever else they've been stationed), and using them instead to protect the US itself, I'm with you. But if you're saying that the US can scrap its military entirely, I still say you're crazy.
A nation need a military to deal with threats both external and internal; in my opinion that's one of the fundamental roles of government.
Ryan,
Yes private security can go a long way, but in spite of that a nation still needs an official military to keep things in check. Otherwise it could very easily see those private militias turn into armed gangs, at which point anarchy would ensue, followed shortly by tyranny, as soon as any of the gangs managed to solidify a large enough area to rule.
The US could learn a lot from the Swiss, but keep in mind that even Switzerland still has a military.
There are a lot of other things that could be discussed here, but I've tried to answer both of your main points without writing for hours on end. Let me know if there's anything important that I've glossed over.
Yes! Moreover, in every place we have troops, and here's the funny part, they're there by invitation and/or treaty. ANY time S. Korea wants us out, we go. Same with Germany (personally, I recommend immediate evacuation, preferably to Poland who seems to like us better). Same thing ANYWHERE we have troops, even IRAQ!
Yes! That's right! The current Iraqi government asks us to go, we'll go. We're funny that way, but then, we DID voluntarily give up our colonial empire.
Huh. I've never heard of that before, but it sounds interesting. Do you know of any websites (or books) that would have more details about this aspect of US foreign policy (especially with regard to Iraq)?
It always interests me that countries with large standing always seem to find ways to use them (US in Iraq perhaps?) while everyone else just wishes they would have stayed at home.
What garbage. If that were the case, then why isn't the EU going around the world toppling governments left and right? The combined military spending of all the EU countries is on par with US military spending in the late 90s, and the Europeans won't even send 28 helicopters that are needed in Afghanistan.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
"Yes private security can go a long way, but in spite of that a nation still needs an official military to keep things in check. Otherwise it could very easily see those private militias turn into armed gangs, at which point anarchy would ensue, followed shortly by tyranny, as soon as any of the gangs managed to solidify a large enough area to rule."
If a group strong enough to rule an area automatically turns into tyranny, an what basis are you trusting one "official" group with monopoly power? Seems to me that with a concentration of power like that, we'd be even more vulnerable to tyranny.
If I recall correctly, the founding fathers were pretty big on the idea of not concentrating power in the hands of one group, for precisely that reason. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 46, figured that the number of men in private militias ought to outnumber the men in a government army by about 20 to 1.
Distributed power does not equal tyranny. It keeps tyranny in check, and guarantees freedom.
On what basis are you trusting one "official" group with monopoly power?
Firstly, on the constraints provided by a constitution. Official governments in industrial societies typically play by a set of rules, such as "you can't just kill anyone who disagrees with you" and "no you may not force everyone to convert to one religion". An "unofficial" government wouldn't necessarily have to play by such rules.
Secondly, by separation of power within the official government. For example, in the US there are the senate, the house of congress, the office of the president, the court system, the various levels of local government etc. and these have the effect of forcing government action to be moderate and incremental. Even if a crazy extremist managed to become president, he would still not be able to automatically get his way on every issue because of the opposition he would face from all the other branches of government. If a gang carved out a piece of turf and ruled it as they pleased, they’d be unlikely to tolerate such diversity of opinion within their ranks.
Thirdly, on democracy. Being up for election every few years tends to have a sobering effect on any politician who would want to, say, recklessly start abusing the government's ability to confiscate property. How many small-scale armed gangs have there been that have taken over a neighborhood and then proceeded to give everyone a ballot?
Now these three are all somewhat interdependent, and they also depend on citizens' rights to bear arms and defend themselves. In a country in which only the police and military personnel had guns, the right to vote on who is to lead the country could easily be destroyed by whoever happened to control the police and/or military.
So I believe that individual citizens do need to be responsible for defending their own rights and freedoms, but that we also need an armed government to keep the individual citizens from setting up their own (quite possibly despotic) government. And I think America's Founding Father's held a similar view.
From what I understand, when America’s system of government was being set up, there was a significant faction of politicians that didn’t want to have a federal government at all. They wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers, and were in sharp disagreement with the opinions of James Madison et al. But they were eventually won over to a federalist system of government because it was feared that without one, the states would grow despotic and begin to act like . . . well, armed gangs. Essentially, if they had left a power void at the federal level, someone eventually would have tried to fill it, and may have ended up setting up a tyranny. Instead, the founders decided to set up a weak, accountable federal government that conformed to the three points I outlined above, and thus fill up the power void.
Distributed power does not equal tyranny. It keeps tyranny in check, and guarantees freedom.
You’re right. But I think that power ought not to be distributed horizontally among various regional political units, but also vertically between levels of government.
James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 46, figured that the number of men in private militias ought to outnumber the men in a government army by about 20 to 1.
And maybe he’s right. I certainly don’t have enough knowledge to estimate what the ratio should be, but I have no ideological opposition to a twenty to one ratio in favour of private militias. What I do have a problem with is a twenty to zero ratio, which is what anonymous above seemed to be advocating in his initial post.
"Firstly, on the constraints provided by a constitution. Official governments in industrial societies typically play by a set of rules, such as "you can't just kill anyone who disagrees with you" and "no you may not force everyone to convert to one religion". An "unofficial" government wouldn't necessarily have to play by such rules."
You think a Constitution stops governments from randomly killing people? I think that's ridiculous; a document that they don't already largely agree with isn't going to stop them. The only reason the US government doesn't outright kill political dissidents is because there is a huge cultural taboo against it. Note the unconstitutionality of every law passed by the Federal government that is not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, and how they're not dissuaded in the least by that. It's culturally acceptable, so they get away with it regardless of what the Constitution has to say about it.
"Secondly, by separation of power within the official government. For example, in the US there are the senate, the house of congress, the office of the president, the court system, the various levels of local government etc. and these have the effect of forcing government action to be moderate and incremental."
You really think some random band of crazies with guns could just take over and rule everybody? You're placing way too much faith in the "official" group of megalomaniacal bastards. Just because they've got checks within their own group to trip up the people who don't go along with the consensus doesn't mean they're safe. The threat of losing customers is a far better regulator of behavior.
"Thirdly, on democracy. Being up for election every few years tends to have a sobering effect on any politician who would want to, say, recklessly start abusing the government's ability to confiscate property. How many small-scale armed gangs have there been that have taken over a neighborhood and then proceeded to give everyone a ballot?"
If an armed gang set up shop and provided me with security for 20% of my income but otherwise left me alone, they'd be doing a hell of a lot better job than the government does for a lot less money. Yes, the current system gives me a choice to vote every four year between two politicians who are identical in their desire to take my money and blow it on stupid crap that doesn't help me, but I find that small consolation for the ongoing, systematic seizure of my property to finance their bread and circus bullshit.
"So I believe that individual citizens do need to be responsible for defending their own rights and freedoms, but that we also need an armed government to keep the individual citizens from setting up their own (quite possibly despotic) government. And I think America's Founding Father's held a similar view."
The Founding Fathers considered taxes amounting to about 3% of total production to be tyranny worth shedding blood over. They didn't even think the US should maintain a standing army outside of wartime. Don't even try to tell me that they thought the government ought to keep the people from protecting themselves and managing their own affairs.
"Essentially, if they had left a power void at the federal level, someone eventually would have tried to fill it, and may have ended up setting up a tyranny."
The solution to the tendency of governments to become corrupt and despotic is not to set up more governments above them, as those are even further removed from the everyday individual and even more prone to corruption and tyranny.
Government tends to suck. You can't change that by creating more government on top of it.
"You’re right. But I think that power ought not to be distributed horizontally among various regional political units, but also vertically between levels of government."
I have yet to see a compelling argument for why the organization that by definition claims the legal right to initiate force against those within its sphere of influence ought to have any power at all. So far all you've come up with is the notion that a military force that is bound by oath and law to carry out the demands of the political class is somehow going to be more upstanding and moral than a random collection of civilians, while it seems fairly obvious to me that the opposite would be true.
"What I do have a problem with is a twenty to zero ratio, which is what anonymous above seemed to be advocating in his initial post."
I fail to see why they should be in the mix at all. As I said above, the unique attributes of a government army make it more morally suspect than a random group of civilians, not less.
Although I understand the advantages of not having a centralized army, I doubt that the US could have won the war against Japan with a bunch of militia gangs, who first have to agree on a united leadership before they can take any action outside US territory. They probably wouldn't have started any action against Germany, since a war in Europe is not promising any profit for a profit-oriented institution.
Why did Roosevelt support Britain in the European war? He certainly didn't expect any immediate personal profit from it. I think he did something which very few people do, he thought about the long-term consequences, and by this I don't mean 10 years, I mean 50-100 years.
It appears that WW2 cost the US $3 trillion (in todays dollars), that's about 20% of US GDP 2007. I am sure that the US has profited in the long-term due to all the exports to Europe AFTER WW2, which wouldn't have been possible without beating the Fascists and holding GATT negotiations with European countries afterwards.
And as to the US having a small military what year was it the USN starting having more tonnage than the mighty RN? ( It's earlier than you might think.)
What year did the USN's "White Fleet" sail around the world to demonstrate the USN was able to project power on to the 7 seas?
And as to the US being non-interventionist..Spanish American War, the The Mexican things, the Phillipines, Japan/Perry...
I have just recently returned from Peru - I was there on a Mission trip repairing damage from the earth quake last August.
I was in Peru for 16 days, spending most of our time centered around Ica, and during that time I saw countless USAID shelters that people were living in. I saw only 1 Red Cross shelter, and none from anybody else.
So going with the theory that the US should mind its own business and not 'police the world' lets look at the successors to the US.
Remember the adage 'Power abhors a vacuum', when the US becomes an isolationist society the superpowers to fill that vacancy are...drum roll please...China or Russia!!!
Hmm, not sure about you guys, but i'm not sure i want a communist regime or the Russian mob being thw 'world police'. I'll take my chances with the good ole US of A. We're not perfect, but we're hell of a lot better than the other choices. Unless the world would rather deal with Chinese and Russian power.
The U.S. military also effectively subsidizes Europe and East Asia in that the U.S. military is what ensures the security of the Saudi Royal Family, and thus the flow of that Saudi oil, which is very crucial to the European and East Asian economies. If the Saudi Royal Family was to be overthrown in a coup d'etat or something, that oil flow could be cut or interupted, sending global crude prices spiraling upwards, and the global economy reeling.
So America's protecting Europe didn't end with the end of the Cold War.
Post a Comment