🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael T Shinn wrote:
> 
> John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
> : If you want to argue that accepting Federal money makes a part-time force into a
> : standing army, be my guest.
> 
> We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  For me at
> least, the one who signs the checks is the boss.  And a Federally funded
> standing is not my definition of a militia.  Thats my definition of an
> army.
> 
> : %Aha - so its an army now?  Sure there not in the same militia?  (Forget
> : %it, you made my point)
> 
> : Negative.   It is a Reserve of the United States Army _and_ a category of
> : Militia.  That's what dual role is.
> 
> The Guard is not the Reserve.  Its a standing army, be it a federal army
> or a state army - but its still an army.

Sorry, but the Guard is not full-time. That makes it a Reserve, and not
a full-time Army.

Actually, one of the functions of any militia would be the
organizational aspects, even though for the unorganized militia, those
organizational aspects are pretty much limited by "militia philosophy"
to a particular county or neighborhood. The National Guard was and is
the Organized Militia of a State. I am somewhat worried by the fact that
it (along with the Coast Guard) is the primary source for
rapid-mobilization personnel in times of war; I'd feel better if the
National Guard/Coast Guard was the primary source only for in-country
mobilization needs and not the first to be shipped out. _That_ aspect of
the increasing Federalization of the NG/CG has me very worried indeed.

<snips>


> : Nope.  What broke the US resolve was the Tet Offensive, which was about as
> : conventional as the 12th SS Panzers.
> 
> Time broke the US resolve.  Any war, dragged on for an indefinite period
> of time, with no definable goals, and a limited subset of actionable
> fronts that don't effect an enemies supply lines and moral resolve will be
> lost.  War is not about taking land, its about crushing your enemies will
> to fight.  If you take his will, you've won the war.

Hmm, of course that goes without saying. Actually I suspect that unrest
and dissension at home (much of it in reality over the fact that we had
no real strategy to win in Vietnam, JMHO) had a lot to do with sapping
our will to fight-and-win. We could probably have crushed the North
Vietnamese with reasonable speed had the go-ahead been given. We lost
that war at home more than anyplace else, again Just My Humble Opinion.

<snips>


-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.