Comments on: War without End

By: don

don — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:33:30 +0000

Lars,

I could not agree more. Some have said that, Ron Paul running for office in the Republican primary said all the same, but of course was pushed off to the side by the corporate controlled media.

Don

By: Lars

Lars — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:56:28 +0000

As long as oil remains so important as a fuel and raw material
for nearly everything we make there will be sufficient reason
to wage war and to disguise it as a war on terror.

As soon as we admit that the current wars are not about
“killing terrorists before they come here” or other such nonsense, but instead about maintaining our current lifestyle
and its reliance on fossil fuels, we might be able to do
something about the causes instead of the symptoms.

But who wants to publicly admit that we’re waging war so we
can get somebody else’s resources?

By: Sam Lindhorst

Sam Lindhorst — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:18:44 +0000

Don, you are hugely, accurately correct. This has been and is the problem with the military. But Obama didn’t let this genie out of the bottle, and the rationale and impetus for use of troops is strong and well established among the American Electorate. Obama, like any other politician, isn’t going to anger the voters. This mess didn’t happen since November ‘08, and for 8 years before that we had an administration that treated the American Military as the implementors of every hare-brained idea they had. And we let them.

By: Don

Don — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:15:12 +0000

THank you for both of your insights. And, I agree, though I attest, I am no expert on ancient warfare (though interested in any kind of Military History). My specialty is Industrial and modern warfare, leader, doctrine and force structure/personnel management. I learned a lot from your two posts. I guess the authors metaphor was not well thought out, but I understood his thesis.

Again, thanks for your contributions to this blog.

Don

By: zenpundit

zenpundit — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:29:35 +0000

Sven called it. Sparta had its hands full keeping down the helots and its own unruly allies. While arguably, the Spartans provoked war with Athens, it was the Athenians who transformed themselves from a local and defensive city state to a maritme, expansionist empire. Sparta eventually having a useful navy was a direct adaptation to being repeatedly being beaten by the Athenians. The Spartans learned and became better sailors and appointed more talented Navarchs.

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:52:18 +0000

They have no clue about Sparta.

Sparta was a fragile state that needed its rather small army to keep slaves and semi-slaves under control.
It was avoiding to send strong army detachments away for more than a few days as much as possible.

It wasn’t involved in long-range expeditions (that’s what the Athenians did – and it ended in disaster at Syracuse).

It was a land-bound power with no navy to speak of.

Sparta was not warmongering – it was afraid that wars could decimate the thin ranks of its citizens too much and often reluctant to enter a war.