The US Military - motives

ejmaztec

Does anyone know of any conflict, involving the US, where no conditions or financial gain were part of the equation. I can think of only one, i.e. the Pacific theatre in WW2. In that they had no choice after the attack on Pearl Harbour. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the US military was and is the largest group of mercenaries on the planet. I’d be interested to hear other people’s opinions on this point.

jhegarty

kosovo ?

Capt'n Midnight

Mercenaries are hired by other people, not their own government.

Pearl Harbour could have been prevented easily if either side had backed down and focused on their common enemy, communism. It's possible had Japan had better PR or the US made clear that immediate removal of Japanese from China didn't mean Manchuria as well.

At present the US spends (depending on whose figures you believe) as much on military spending as the rest of the world put together. The military budget is $623,000,000,000.

The US consumes 20m barrels a day of which 12m barrels is imported
at $100 per barrel this works out as $438,000,000,000 far lower than the military budget - if they dropped military spending per capita to other OECD levels then they could have free fuel in the USA

FiSe

WWI, WWII, Korea, Somalia........perhaps?????


This is nonsence question, in my opinion, or it's put the wrong way at the best. I have the feeling that, you automatically assume that we'll start bitching about 'em bad yanks.

Every involvement of any state in any war is somehow tied to the "interests" of particular state. Me thinks

eroo

Ed Horgan??

dresden8

Actually the Americans and Japanese were involved in a dispute which had at it's heart, who would dominate the pacific.

After the Americans cut off the supply of oil to Japan the Japanese had two choices, give in or attack. Yet the attack still came as a surprise. Therefore a million conspiracy theories were born.

It should also be remembered that the Americans were actually at war in the Atlantic against the U-boats. That fact is also overlooked when people ask the question "Why was Hitler mad enough to declare war on the Americans?

It was also a war Roosevelt promised the American people they would not be involved in, even though he was chomping at the bit to get in.

Just don't believe the hype.

Capt'n Midnight

dresden8 wrote: »

Actually the Americans and Japanese were involved in a dispute which had at it's heart, who would dominate the pacific.

don't thinks so, Japanese were far more interested in east, north and south than west.

After the Americans cut off the supply of oil to Japan the Japanese had two choices, give in or attack. Yet the attack still came as a surprise. Therefore a million conspiracy theories were born.

oil and the other raw materials, also the European powers were in a weakened state

It should also be remembered that the Americans were actually at war in the Atlantic against the U-boats. That fact is also overlooked when people ask the question "Why was Hitler mad enough to declare war on the Americans?

very hard to call this one, yes it was a real shooting war in the Atlantic at the time, but Japan never gave any real assistance to the other Axis powers, had they gone for IIRC plan north (cba looking it up) and attacked siberia then things may have gone differently since the US public opinion would have less reason to help the Soviets than the Chinese. World communism might have been quiet different.

PHB

I think its quite an interesting question. It's a tough thing to talk about to be honest. What is interest? If you gain self-satisifaction from saving peoples lives, is that any difference to economic gains?

But if you are talking about that, I'd be very interested to hear of an actual case of this being done for the good of people, not themselves.
Even actions such as Kosovo imo had a political motive behind them, and it's just that the genocides gave them a valid excuse to go in.

Fratton Fred

The Americans see themselves as the Global police and the gaurdians of freedon, democracy etc etc.

lostexpectation

kosovo was part of the cold war

ejmaztec

If at first you don’t succeed …..

WW2 in Europe:

I was of course using the term “mercenary” figuratively. It’s interesting, Dresden8, that the US government of the time told their voters that there was no way that they were going to get involved in the European theatre of WW2. I think that, when Churchill got on his knees looking for assistance, the more ambitious elements of the US government seized the opportunity. Perhaps Churchill assumed that, as his mother was American, they might have been more personable. I don’t know whether the American peoples knew what was going on behind closed doors. The financial and scientific incentives were huge.

Initially, this incentive came from the handing over of Britain’s gold-bullion reserves, some, or all of these, having been stashed in South Africa for safe-keeping. Because the Americans didn’t entirely trust the British, one of their warships trailed a British ship to South Africa to make certain that they got their hands on the bullion. As added bonuses, the Americans also acquired access to all of Britain’s scientific secrets, not to mention the transfer of ownership of all British owned property in the US itself. Various other conditions were also expected to be complied with, i.e. leases on British military bases in various parts of the world. Then there was the lend-lease agreement.

An RAF officer was telling me a long time ago about a consignment of crated up fighter aircraft on board a convoy of Atlantic merchant ships. Whilst the ships were in transit, the war ended in Europe, so the aircraft were no longer necessary. As part of the lend-lease agreement, the British weren’t allowed to sell the planes, the Americans weren’t obliged to take them back, so the entire consignment was dumped overboard into the Atlantic.

At the end of the European war, the Americans raced around Europe, trying to beat the Russians to the top German scientists – and also to Germany’s stockpile of scientific secrets. Apparently, some 3,500 tons of German scientific papers were collected and shipped back to the US. I realise that there are such things as “ spoils of war”, but I think that the rest of the allies were too busy surveying the devastation of their countries to get their hands on any of them..

I wonder whether the Americans accidentally happened upon all of the extras that they acquired, or whether it was their intention all along to strip Europe of anything that would be of benefit to them. I wouldn’t like to believe the latter, as this would make a mockery of the thousands of Americans killed in action in Europe. From a film perspective, for example, I see it as more “Kelly’s Heroes” than “Sands of Iwo Jima”. I can see why some Americans at the time might bear a grudge against Europe in general. Some European emigrants to the US, over the centuries, went there on an adventure etc. For other Europeans, impoverished, persecuted, or generally undesirable in their home countries, the US was probably the only option for most of them. Some of these people, and their descendants, would have had an inbred hatred of the Europe that didn’t want them, so wouldn’t think twice about pay-back, in some form or other. I don’t know whether any Irish-Americans were involved in the negotiations involving the British government, but I can imagine the joy they would have had in making Britain squirm.

It’s not difficult to see why the US became the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation on the planet. Some conspiracy theorists say that this sudden advancement was due to the “Roswell Incident”, whereas I think that it was due to the vast addition to the US scientific data store, courtesy of a devastated Europe.

As far as I can see, the only amusing aspect of all of this is the term “Special Arrangement”, the phrase always bandied about when people like Tony Blair and George W stand arm in arm on the podium, talking about the old longstanding friendly alliance of the US and the UK.

dresden8

Quote:
Originally Posted by dresden8
Actually the Americans and Japanese were involved in a dispute which had at it's heart, who would dominate the pacific.

don't thinks so, Japanese were far more interested in east, north and south than west.

Yes but you are forgetting that the American were in the East, North and South as well. At the time the Americans controlled the Phillipines, Guam, Wake and a crapload of places, islands and bases that they had seized in their war with the Spanish.

The Japanese wanted to seize the oil, tin, rubber of the Dutch, French and English colonies, they knew the Americans wouldn't stand idly by, so no option but to attack.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

At the end of the European war, the Americans raced around Europe, trying to beat the Russians to the top German scientists

" Those damned Russians, they captured smarter Germans than we did " - an alleged remark by an American General on hearing of Sputnik.

jmayo

McArmalite wrote: »

" Those damned Russians, they captured smarter Germans than we did " - an alleged remark by an American General on hearing of Sputnik.

It wasn't really a case of the US capturing them as more the German scientists fled towards the Western allies and gave themselves up, rather than be caught by the Soviets who would be less forgiving and usually offered only the incentive of deliver or Siberia.
The Soviets did capture Peenemunde and a lot of the infrastructure so that gave them some ideas. They also trawalled Germany looking for ex rocket workers. Then they gave them the Siberia choice.

The SS had been ordered to kill von Bruan (even though honorary SS officer) and his crew rather than let them fall into the hands of the Allies. Von Braun and his brother supposeldy surrendered to a US corporal.

Manic Moran

ejmaztec wrote: »

Does anyone know of any conflict, involving the US, where no conditions or financial gain were part of the equation. I can think of only one, i.e. the Pacific theatre in WW2.

I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by 'conditions.' The military is unlikley to be used if the US doesn't think that there is some benefit to the US using its military. It may be for issues of domestic policy such as Panama, external policy such as Vietnam, international appearance such as Somalia or Kosovo, obligation to its citizens like Iran Hostage, some sort of combination of the above like Grenada, or simple economic interest like Kuwait.

NTM

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by 'conditions.' The military is unlikley to be used if the US doesn't think that there is some benefit to the US using its military. It may be for issues of domestic policy such as Panama, external policy such as Vietnam, international appearance such as Somalia or Kosovo, obligation to its citizens like Iran Hostage, some sort of combination of the above like Grenada, or simple economic interest like Kuwait.

NTM

Regarding “conditions”, I’m referring to a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” situation. In the WW2 UK deal, for expansionist strategic reasons, the US probably saw the benefits of having permanent naval bases in various regions across the World. It’s obvious that this best serves American interests overseas.

There were obviously conditions attached to the US involvement in other “skirmishes” since WW2, but Joe Public probably won’t find out what these conditions were until some time in the distant future There must be an awful lot of signed paper-work under lock and key in the depths of some US government establishment.

Unfortunately, because no-one really knows what’s going on, they draw their own conclusions as to why the US has representation in a particular place at a particular time. Then it’s a pick your own conspiracy theory scenario.

delta_bravo

The Spanish-American-Phillipino war of the early 20th century perhaps?

dresden8

delta_bravo wrote: »

The Spanish-American-Phillipino war of the early 20th century perhaps?

That's the war where they grabbed all those bases in the Pacific.

A war that was started by a fake naval attack.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm????!!!!

delta_bravo

dresden8 wrote: »

That's the war where they grabbed all those bases in the Pacific.

A war that was started by a fake naval attack.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm????!!!!

The cause of the sinking of the Maine is not fully conclusive

Morlar

jhegarty wrote: »

kosovo ?

Kosovo is said to be the one example that america can hold out to the muslim world to prove they are on their side or at least impartial (rather than tackle israel or resolve israel/palestine).

So indirectly there is a tactical benefit to it. - If you look into the background to the nato bombing (specifically the racak massacre and the concentration camp ITN stories) there is a dimension to that which goes beyond the honest humanitarian objectives that they may have you believe. In addition albright was the first women in that role - you could argue that she was chomping at the bit to begin with.

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

Does anyone know of any conflict, involving the US, where no conditions or financial gain were part of the equation. I can think of only one, i.e. the Pacific theatre in WW2. In that they had no choice after the attack on Pearl Harbour. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the US military was and is the largest group of mercenaries on the planet. I’d be interested to hear other people’s opinions on this point.

Disagree, America had been warming up to war for a year or two at least before pearl harbour, and there were obvious financial gains to be made. In addition, the pacific was seen as America's, ever since the concept of manifest destiny was coined. They had already invaded the Philipines, Hawai'i and a number of other countries/islands. So if anything they had more conditions or gain in WW2 than any other war outside of itself.