What Obama doesn't want to talk about

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think the argument works better where there is more of a Spartan military ethic - lifelong service, from people who are there to fight.

But that's not our military. Our military is loaded with people who are trying to get through school, or get specific training, or who are otherwise there on a temporary, volunteer basis. Yes, they absolutely know that their life could be put on the line at any time when they sign up, but if our role did formally become more one of a policeman, it would entail such different considerations.

It's an emotional argument, but for any military endeavor, what would the decision be if someone had to send a member of their family? Most would say only for our defense in that circumstance, and only when all other options have been exhausted....

1) It never has and never will be a case of someone 'sending' a member of their family. I disagree with that being used as some sort of litmus test.

2) As long as it is a volunteer status and we are up front with how we will react going forward, then it is a choice each individual makes. If we see that such policy results in a deterioration of the number/quality of volunteers, then it is a policy we would have to rethink. That said, I would be adamant about the fact that we would be committed to the full armament of the individual (body armor, proper weapons, protected vehicles etc....) and that we would be committed to only going in when we had the full intention of winning. Meaning no more of this 'put you in harms way but with both hands and one foot tied behind your back' mentality.

3) I think in many of the situations, Sudan, Rwanda etc... the slaughters occur because one side is heavily armed and the other side has sticks by comparison. It is a much greater deterrent when the opponent is firing back at you with equal or greater force. If we are there (like the UN was in Rwanda) and the stronger party knows our policy is one of 'no armed conflict unless fired upon', then there is no real deterrent. If our policy is 'if you shoot group 'x' we are going to hammer you'... they may think twice. A bully is only a bully because he thinks he won't get his ass kicked. Which is why most bullies pick on those half their size. When that smaller kid brings in big brother, that bully suddenly has to rethink picking on the smaller kid. Can he take big brother? Does he want to risk it?