A large standing army

[Kart29]

Was reading a biography of Peter the Great written by Jacob Abbott and came across this little gem:

It is in consequence of having observed the effect of such armaments in the despotisms of Europe and Asia that the free governments of modern times take good care not to allow large standing armies to be formed. Instead of this the people organize themselves into armed bands, in connection with which they meet and practice military evolutions on appointed days, and then separate and go back to their wives and to their children, and to their usual occupations, while in the despotic countries where large standing armies are maintained, the people are strictly forbidden to possess arms, or to form organizations, or to take measures of any kind that could tend to increase their means of defense against their oppressors in the event of a struggle.
The consequence is, that under the free governments of the present day the people are strong and the government is weak. The [180] standing army of France consists at the present time of five hundred thousand men, completely armed and equipped, and devoted all the time to the study and practice of the art of war. By means of this force one man is able to keep the whole population of the country in a state of complete and unquestioning submission to his will. In the United States, on the other hand, with a population nearly as great, the standing army seldom amounts to an effective force of fifteen thousand men; and if a president of the United States were to attempt by means of it to prolong his term of office, or to accomplish any other violent end, there is, perhaps, not a single state in the Union, the population of which would not alone be able to put him down—so strong are the people with us, and so weak, in opposition to them, the government and the army.
It is often made a subject of reproach by European writers and speakers, in commenting on the state of things in America, that the government is so weak; but this we consider not our reproach, but our glory. The government is indeed weak. The people take good care to keep it weak. But the nation is not weak; the nation is strong. The difference is, that in our country the nation chooses to retain its [181] power in its own hands. The people make the government strong enough from time to time for all the purposes which they wish it to accomplish. When occasion shall arise, the strength thus to be imparted to it may be increased almost indefinitely, according to the nature of the emergency. In the mean time, the people consider themselves the safest depositary of their reserved power.

found at: The Baldwin Project: Peter the Great by Jacob Abbott



published 1859.

Is this concept still valid or has the world changed so much that such is no longer possible?

How does this square with our ideas about modern militias and their value in our current society? Should they be encouraged or discouraged?

 

[BogWalker]

I see no reason the people should not be trained in the usage of arms.

It's true, on the modern battlefield small arms fire isn't as effective as it once was in the face of drones, planes, and the latest generation bombs. However, I find it still hard to believe the mainland United States could be attacked and there not be enemy troops on the ground. You can't wholly fight a war from the air. What would they gain by doing that? They would get no land, no resources, no gain whatsoever. All they would accomplish is the destruction of our industry, but they would directly gain nothing. As long as there is infantry I believe there should be a militia.

We can't distance ourselves from a large army for the time being, however. Too many foreign nations we've picked fights with and who have picked fights with us. If we followed a greater pattern of isolationism we could perhaps lower the size of our standing army considerably.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Rather than try to address relevant quotes, let me say the following:

From the first post: might the relevant difference between European powers and the United States not be the relative size of the formed forces, but rather the philosophies of state control versus personal freedom embodied in the United States' founding and national (and state) Constitution(s)? It's true that there were no large formed forces throughout the United States during the majority of our history, but at that point armed conflicts were either confined to other parts of the world and/or limited by the size of forces which could be transported from Europe to the Americas to invade us. Today, instead of weeks by sea from Europe or Asia, it's hours by air, and a significant invasion beachhead secured solely by force of naval action is no longer required to invade a continent, as we proved in Europe with the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne in 1944.

While territory can't be held by air power, weapons exist which can allow air power to scour large areas clear of life for a tradeoff of a relatively short period of radiation contamination, as just one example of what air power CAN do, if it has supremacy.

We attempted to reduce the size of our standing army after every major conflict we've endured since the Civil War, and we're in the process of doing so even today, when we're arguably still participating in a "generational war" against an enemy who has picked a fight with us on our soil and has vowed to defeat us utterly. We no longer have the ability to fight a "two front war," which we had to develop during WWII and which we maintained as a national strategy until the 1990s and the end of the Cold War. Now, whether we realize it or not, we're engaged in a simultaneous "Cold War" with a major Asian power, while simultaneously conducting a worldwide war against an irregular enemy.

While I don't agree with BogWalker's characterization of why we need to maintain our standing military forces, I agree that we do need to maintain them. The alternative to a large standing military force is a much smaller "standing army" with a tremendously increased "militia" (read "National Guard") trained and equipped to at least a basic military standard, which would require minimal trainup to be deployed if called upon. This, in turn, would require a resurgence in interest in military arts on the part of a much larger part of the population and would of necessity require a renewed interest in shooting sports and outdoorsmanship that is largely lacking in the population today.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Why would the concept become invalid over time? Has the nature of humans and government changed at all in recorded history?

The fear that a standing army will be used against the citizens of a country are well founded as history is full of examples whn the army murders thousands and millions of it's own to keep the bureaucrats in power.

History has also proven that a country with a well regulated militia, with the best example being Switzerland for hundreds of years, is apt to remain free from both tyranny and from foreign aggression.

One of the key mistakes in the Constitution IMO is that the Framers allowed for congress to fund the military permanently by simply re-passing spending bulls every two years. They should have known better.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Why would the concept become invalid over time? Has the nature of humans and government changed at all in recorded history?

The fear that a standing army will be used against the citizens of a country are well founded as history is full of examples whn the army murders thousands and millions of it's own to keep the bureaucrats in power.

History has also proven that a country with a well regulated militia, with the best example being Switzerland for hundreds of years, is apt to remain free from both tyranny and from foreign aggression.

One of the key mistakes in the Constitution IMO is that the Framers allowed for congress to fund the military permanently by simply re-passing spending bulls every two years. They should have known better.

The fear of a standing army being used against the citizens of the US is somewhat countered by our citizens' constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and also by our pretty-much-unique constitutional concepts that the powers of government are derived from the People of the nation, and that those people have certain rights not granted to them by their government, but which are intrinsic to their status as human beings.

The history of Switzerland's neutrality and independence is due as much to its geographical position and terrain features as its citizens' willingness to defend it. Any major armed force willing to pay the initial price could defeat and assimilate the Swiss, but there isn't sufficient payback in natural resources or treasure to make it worthwhile. The same cannot be said of the United States.

I don't believe the Founders made a "mistake" with the Constitution; they left a good model to follow and left it to their successors to maintain their example. With the world situation since The Great War, we have drastically reduced our forces after each major conflict and time after time we have been forced to spend even more treasure and take time to rebuild those forces in the face of different threats. We could do things differently, perhaps, but we would still need to have the capability to fight a major conflict on short notice, the time/distance factors between continents being what they are these days.

 

[KellyinAvon]

We've had a professional, all-volunteer military since 1973. Since then the US Military has changed a great deal, not always for the better. One thing I can tell you: a conscript military could not operate in the same manner as our military. The NCO and SNCO Corp don't run the military, they make it run. I saw an excellent conscript force, the South Korean Air Force (ROKAF). It's not the same as what we have. Comparing the technological-based military of today to 1859 Europe isn't comparing apples to oranges; it's ice cream to Tuesday. GPS?? A bunch of Air Force bubbas in Colorado run GPS. An Abrams ain't a Sherman and a Raptor ain't a Mustang.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We've had a professional, all-volunteer military since 1973. Since then the US Military has changed a great deal, not always for the better. One thing I can tell you: a conscript military could not operate in the same manner as our military. The NCO and SNCO Corp don't run the military, they make it run. I saw an excellent conscript force, the South Korean Air Force (ROKAF). It's not the same as what we have. Comparing the technological-based military of today to 1859 Europe isn't comparing apples to oranges; it's ice cream to Tuesday. GPS?? A bunch of Air Force bubbas in Colorado run GPS. An Abrams ain't a Sherman and a Raptor ain't a Mustang.

I thought the All Volunteer Army started in 1974; I know I had my first experience with VOLAR starting in 1975. That was also about the time the military started bringing military pay closer to civilian standards. I had some experience with ROKA and ROK Marine conscripts during my tour there in 1974/75. There is a limited amount you can teach an 18-year-old when you only keep him for three years. The ROK armed forces have improved a great deal in the intervening years (as I learned when I was there in 2007) but they are still a conscript force, just from a fairly harsh culture.

Today's Army/Marine infantryman is a highly-trained specialist; master of quite a few technologies, mechanical, electronic, and physical. And his supporting forces, both combat and support branches are equally technical specialists. It's no accident that the conventional stages of our last two wars have resulted in overwhelmingly rapid victories over numerically superior forces with very few casualties on our side.

 

[reeseg45]

I think it would revert to iron sights and men. No country can maintain air superiority forever. To expensive

 

[actaeon277]

I think it would revert to iron sights and men. No country can maintain air superiority forever. To expensive

And what about the mean time.
You know, the time from when cities, manufacturing bases, communications and control centers, government offices, and other targets are bombed or taken over......



And the time when the citizen rises up to overthrow the overlords.


Personally, I want to stop them at the gates, or before the get to the gates.

Citizen with a gun. Great. I have no problem with that.
and they do have a proven track of doing damage and preventing a modern army from achieving complete victory.

But, have you looked at the carnage and the cost?


If we could build missiles, tanks, guns, ships, comm equipment, etc.....
and train everyone to use it all, with each other as a group,
and do it in the time that it takes someone to place some airplanes, ships, troops here
then go for it.


But we used to have months. Even years for that to happen.
How about now?

In my opinion, we need a standing military.
But, we need to remain ever vigilant of the military, and the civilians that control it.

I am more worried about the civilian part of that equation.