Is the US the most "militaristic" nation in the history of the world?

[kentuck]

We are now spending over one/half trillion dollars a year on our military budget. Our military is spread all around the world. We protect corporate interests in almost every nation. We glorify our soldiers as if that were the greatest profession they could ever enter. They are more respected than doctors or teachers, if we judge by the degree of praise heaped upon them. Nobody dare criticize the military. They are "defending" our freedom and lifestyle, we are told.

Granted, the Nazis tried to take over the world, but they spent nowhere near what the US has spent over the years. How does this reflect on a "democracy"? Are we really a democracy or are we an imperialistic and militaristic empire?

[enlightenment]

1. I'm gonna say Sparta;

the entire society was built around the concept of warfare.

So, no, not the most militaristic.

[ieoeja]

62. That was my first thought on seeing the OP subject. n/t

[madrchsod]

2. no

we are not close to the romans,persians, genghis khan father and sons,and alexander the great.

[tjwash]

43. Rome, g-khan, et-al...

...didn't come close to having military bases in 200 plus countries around the globe.

[ieoeja]

63. They didn't have the technology. n/t

[paulk]

64. AFAIK the United States does not have military bases in 200 plus

countries around the world. Please post a cite for this information.

[Mr Rabble]

3. No question about it.

And your dollar figure is far too low.

We spend $750b on just our regular military. That does not include the Iraq War, nor does it include our intelligence budget.

And then there are the slush funds...

According to Chalmers Johnson, we have more than 800 military bases overseas. How could that be seen as anything other than a military empire?

[Igel]

42. You're confusing money with militarism.

They're different.

In the US the military, guard, and reserve are respected, but no more. The military isn't central to the average American's worldview, except possibly on the extreme right.

[Mr Rabble]

57. I totally disagree.

We think nothing of having military bases within a few miles of every city, and town. Our collective worldview generally sees no issue with invading a country and killing its people as long as we take no casualties. Our worldview sees no problem with having troops in Korea, 50 years after the last conflict there ended.
We have become such a militaristic society that most people dont recognize it anymore.

Militaristic does not imply that soldiers are to be respected, rather that they become commonplace.

[aquart]

4. If our soldiers were really glorified, every child would want to be one.

They don't. Saying you were a soldier, having medals, gets you exactly nothing...except a cut in benefits.

So, no.

[Kelly Rupert]

5. Not close.

Sparta beats us, and everyone else, by a mile.
Rome does too.
Nazi Germany does too; as their entire history was spent under full wartime mobilization.
Taking income into account, North Korea is more militaristic as well.
Counting the Basij, Iran has a greater proportion of its population committed to war.

[sweetheart]

22. in numbers terms, wrong

Sparta was a tiny nation with a tiny military. It would not rank even as a US state.
Your examples are too small, in sheer numbers terms to be remotely comparable, empire-wise,
force-at-arms-wise, and culture-size-wise.

Germany's period of nazism is not the country's entire history, and your re-definition
of the country as not-germany, is absurd.

North Korea has not started any wars for 50 years, whilst the USA has murdered millions
with over 50 military actions over that period.

Iran has not gone to war or aggressively attacked its neighbors, whilst the US army
sits astride them in bases and imperial posturings and occupations.

Militarism without actual wars might actually be self-defense, something different than
a pervasive war culture.

That US culture is adopted the Nazi werner von braun forgiving crime for technology, and
so much cross over from the militarists of other cultures, the black and white definition
pales to who killed the most civilians in the past year avoidably, and the US is there
in the catbird seat.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Well, if you want to compare numbers and not proportions,

that's just silly.

[donsu]

6. yes

nt

[bloom]

7. yes

and I think it's disgusting.


There was someone from our military (a general? maybe) who said recently something about our vastly superior military compared to Iraq. Certainly everyone knows that we have the power to decimate the country (the world) if we wanted. Some people probably think that we are so "nice" because we haven't. :eyes:

I think a lot of US "diplomacy" is threats on our part.

[populistdriven]

8. no, but we are the most effective at Organized Violence & at Jihad Capitalism

[meegbear]

9. Britian, Russia, China ...

since you said "in the history of the world", I would look at the a country/nation through it's entire history. The US doesn't even come close.

[hughee99]

10. As a percentage of GDP, the Nazi's spent much more

on their military than the US currently does. In fact, during WWII, the US did as well. The UK's military is spread all over the world. In many countries (past and present) military service is considered a very honorable profession (whether deservingly or not).

I don't know what exactly you mean by "militaristic", but I would think that based on the definition below, the military would be far more dominant in today's society than it is, and our standing army would be much larger than it currently is. While the * administration is using the military to project it's influence worldwide, it seems like a majority of the people in the country are not going along with it.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militaristic
Main Entry: mil·i·ta·rism
Pronunciation: 'mi-l&-t&-"ri-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals
2 : a policy of aggressive military preparedness

[Missy M]

11. I would say we have the largest military arsenal in the...

history of the world.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Not "the" most, no. It's just better technology and lots of money that makes it look like that.

But it's right up there. For instance, many of you seem to believe the choice of a military career confers some kind of sainthood, to the point of the word "service" meaning "military service."

Me, I think other careers are better candidates for "sainthood." Teachers. Nurses. Firemen. Charity workers.

[William769]

13. No.

[TahitiNut]

14. We have troops stationed in about 130 other nations.

When, in all of human history, was a single nation more pervasive militarily? :eyes:

[kentuck]

21. What other nation was even close in this imperialistic sense..?

And we do use our military to protect and promote our capitalism and corporate interests in all these nations, would be my guess.

[paulk]

31. British Empire, for starters

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/forces.htm

[Ms. Clio]

32. No way, not even close

Not in 130 countries, and not coupled with the ability to deploy massive weapons of mass destruction.

[paulk]

37. you learned all about the British Empire in 3 minutes?

and as for our "ability to deploy massive weapons of mass destruction" -

it seems to me that Iraq (not to mention Vietnam) has exposed the limits of our ability to affect change through military means.

[Ms. Clio]

38. I am quite familiar with the British Empire, and did not require your link

to amplify my knowledge. There is no comparison, in global domination and scope of destructive power, between the Brits of yesteryear and the U.S. of today

Yes, you would think it has exposed those limits, but not everyone believes that. Certainly not the neocons, nor many of the vicious and ignorant Americans who believe all problems in the Middle East could be solved by "turning it into glass."

[paulk]

52. I do not agree

The British Empire lasted for over 350 years, and the effects of their meddling are still being felt today. One needs look no further than Afghanistan and Iraq to see the consequences of British imperialism.

Destructive power is relative to the time period. That should be obvious.

The British Empire used it's military to enforce it's will in well over 300 colonies and protectorates during the course of it's empire - that's not analogous to the US having troops stationed in 130 countries, many of whom are our allies and are not opposed to having our troops there.

[Ms. Clio]

53. "Destructive power is relative to the time period"

Yes, and that's why there is no genuine comparison.

[treestar]

15. In the armchair sense, yes, but I think a truly militaristic nation would

have most of its young men in uniform.

[bryant69]

16. Not even close

And everybody who answer yes should try cracking open a history book.

Sparta
Rome
Japan during WWII
The Aztecs at their height
The Crusaders
The Nazis/Mussolini's Fascists.


Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bloom]

25. We don't need to have everyone be citizen soldiers

when we have nuclear weapons the way we do. And planes and bombs and chemical weapons and biological weapons enough to kill everyone 10 times over.

Add to this the fact the US is the only country to have dropped any nuclear bombs on anyone.

So the US takes over countries and lets them govern themselves (as long as their leaders are approved by our gov't). That doesn't mean that we don't control them.



None of your examples comes close to to having the world-wide military (and corporate) dominance and capacity that the US has.

Not only does the US spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined - in today's world we have the ability to affect/ destroy the entire world. There has never been anything like it.

[Greyhound]

36. "chemical weapons and biological weapons enough to kill everyone 10 times over"

add 3 more zeros to this and you are closer.

[The2ndWheel]

17. Most successful nation in every sphere

That includes the military.

No other empire has ever had a world where they don't face a threat from another empire. Even economically, it's "American" corporations in "China".

The most militaristic? No. Just the most dominant. I know, look what's happening in Iraq, we're not dominating. Well, if we really really wanted to(I mean really wanted to), it would be over yesterday.

[MrCoffee]

18. What about Israel?

Every Israeli has to do compulsory service, don't they?

[ThomWV]

65. I Believe You're Right, but someone should know.

[spillthebeans]

19. Does this look like Rome?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. The military are "muscle-men" for the imperialists.

Perhaps, the USA isn't the most militaristic in history in structure. But, in effect, we are responsible for, or participants in, the most wars in the 20th century. The list of nations that we have made "incursions" into, subverted, propped up murderous dictators, or used surrogate forces in, is monumental.

Mostly done under the rubric of "protecting our vital national interests". Which translates to protecting "our" capitalists and their interests. The cost of which has been millions of civilians either killed directly by our glorious troops or indirectly by the effects of the wars we engineered.


"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."


-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

[bloom]

23. "Imperialists Anonymous"

From Howard Zinn:

You will hear a young fellow who is going off to Iraq. I remember hearing the same thing when a young fellow went off to Vietnam. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says, “You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says, “I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No, they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country. They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth...

Don’t people join Alcoholics Anonymous so that they can stand up and be honest about themselves? Maybe we ought to have an organization called Imperialists Anonymous, you know, and have the leaders of the country get up there on national television and say, “Well, it’s time, you know -- time to tell the truth.” It would be -- I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be refreshing....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/24/1442258

Mark Twain was the vice-president of the Anti-Imperialist League. Maybe it's time to get that going again.

Platform of the Anti-Imperialist League:

October, 1899

We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government....

We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their Government in times of grave National peril applies to the present situation. If an Administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truth suppressing censorship and demand of all citizens a suspension of judgement and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.

* * *
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for reelection all who in the White House or in Congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American gains. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend the Declaration of Independence in the closing campaign of the century.

We hold, with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern another man without that mans consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs30a.htm

[Ms. Clio]

29. such great quotes, so appropriate

Worth repeating: "The policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism.

As for Imperialists Anonymous, actually, just a couple of years ago it was all the rage among rightwing scholars to blather about the glories of empire; for example, British historian Niall Ferguson was wafted into Harvard on a cloud of glory with his bold proclamation of the greatness of the American Empire:

As Ferguson says in the introduction to his latest book, Colossus (2004): “Unlike most of the previous writers who have remarked on this, I have no objection in principle to an American empire. Indeed, a part of my argument is that many parts of the world would benefit from a period of American rule.”

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=77&articleId=2021

[Beelzebud]

26. No. Not even close.

Nazi Germany
Colonial Britain
Colonial Spain
Rome

[ddbaj]

27. Not even close!

Just considering the past few centuries, the USA can't compare in brutality and ammount of intervention to any of the major Euro empires. Then you have Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc.

It depends on definition of course. If it's by culture and attitudes, we're not even on the top 100, if it's by impact, we're up there but we can't compare to the Nazis, Imperial UK, etc.

If it's by ammount of cash and power, then we're #1 due to the fact we're the most modern one.

[DuaneBidoux]

28. Using force? No way. Not even close. Most dangerous? Well...

We have the greatest potential but let's face it, that potential has never been unleashed in even a fraction of what is really there (thank God).

[Greyhound]

30. Definition please.

In terms of territory covered, quantity of ordinance delivered, and range of power, we are number one by several orders of magnitude.

In terms of numbers of people in the military there are several others much larger (modern day China comes to mind, with something like 100,000,000 men at arms).

In terms of the percentage of population in the military I'd go with ancient Sparta.

[paulk]

33. not even close

America has used it's dominance in a far more benevolent way than other empires have throughout history. Not to excuse our obvious excesses, but ask yourself this - who would you rather have as the dominant military power on the planet right now ? - and before you answer, crack open a history book or two and check out what other nations have done when they did have that power...

[kentuck]

34. Yes, we did it mostly for greed..

Mostly for corporate and capitalist greed. The military has been their servant.

[paulk]

35. throughout history, greed has been the primary motivation

for empire. The political or economic system in power has hardly mattered.

The USA is not unique in this.

[kentuck]

40. What role does our military play in this?

If we have troops in 130 countries, as someone noted?

[paulk]

46. the same role any imperial power's military has

to protect that country's economic interest.

You should note that quite a few of those countries are not opposed to having US military stationed on their soil.

[kentuck]

48. At least, the leaders may not be opposed...

But we cannot say that the people support the US military in those nations? I do not know of any polls or opinions on that subject?

[paulk]

55. I'm sure that the wishes of the people and their leaders

often don't coincide - this is especially true in the post cold war era, where polls do show that a majority of the citizens of Germany and Japan don't want US troops stationed there anymore. Still, the Bush administration's shifting of troops out of Germany was seen as a punishment for Germany's stance on Iraq, because of the amount of money it pulled out of the German economy.

-----------------


To go back to an earlier post - the claim that we have troops in 135 countries is extremely misleading -

this from here, up to 2003 -

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm



"Since 1950, 54 countries have hosted at least 1,000 American troops. Troop deploy­ments are widespread every year. During the past 50 years, 54 different countries have hosted 1,000 or more U.S. troops at one point. During the typical year, 20 countries hosted 1,000 (or more) U.S. soldiers. An additional 11.8 countries hosted 100 to 999 American troops. During the 1990s, troops were concen­trated in fewer countries. In 2003, 14 coun­tries hosted 1,000 or more American troops, the same number of countries as in 2000."


-------------------

The troop deployments in many of these countries is not significant in any military way (for instance, Malawi has 1 US troop stationed there), in fact, those troops are stationed there usually for training purposes. Just as there are foreign military troops stationed on US soil.

[Ms. Clio]

39. One of the greatest and most enduring myths of U.S. history

"America has used it's dominance in a far more benevolent way than other empires have throughout history."

[paulk]

41. don't just make a statement

make an argument that backs up your claim.

For instance:

Explain to me how Nazi Germany and/or Imperial Japan would have treated the vanquished Allies if they had been victorious in the Second World War, and how that treatment would have been more benevolent than the American treatment of them was.

[Ms. Clio]

44. My argument is Iraq today, as an example of your "benevolent imperialism"

And the last century of U.S. history, with overt and covert operations in every part of the world that have led to the death of millions of people and the destruction of the lives and futures of millions more. What Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan did or did not do has absolutely no bearing on the existence of those facts.

[paulk]

49. in my original post I said -

"not to excuse our obvious excesses"

the OP's question was whether or not the US was the most militaristic imperial empire the world has ever seen - the answer to that is still "no", despite those excesses.

I still maintain that the US has used it's power in a more benevolent way, even in the last fifty years, than any of the other contenders for the position of superpower would have, those being Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and postwar, the Soviet Union. That doesn't make our abuse of that power ok, but, once again, the question to ask yourself, given the abuses of other nations down through history when they had the opportunity, who you would rather have held that position.

[Ms. Clio]

54. "obvious excesses" implies that the deaths of millions are mere bagatelles

I think to those who have died, it is a distinction without a difference.

[Selatius]

47. How about having no foreign dominator?

Instead of setting up a choice between bad and worse? I'm sure the Filipinos were quite happy when the US government slaughtered tens of thousands of them in a bid to claim it as a colonial possession in their struggle against US domination. We can talk to all the people who live in Nicaragua in the 1980s or the people who lived in Chile under US-backed Pinochet who disappeared thousands. Henry Kissinger is still wanted in several countries over what happened in Chile. Let's talk to all the people who watched the pro-US Shah seize power and watched as he slaughtered thousands of his own citizens in the name of American and British oil interests. These are some examples. There are many more.

Whether or not the US as a foreign power is a more "humane" oppressor is a question that misses the big picture. People would rather there be no oppressor than be made to choose between one or the other. Saying that other powers were worse oppressors does not, in any way, put the US in any flattering light.

[paulk]

58. I would prefer a world with no oppressors

but human nature seems to always interfere with my utopia.

Often, in life, the choice is between bad and worse.

[Selatius]

61. I disagree.

There is often a choice other than accepting bad and worse. Life usually offers more than just A or B. The third option would be to resist occupation instead of tolerating any occupation. If you and I were faced with being occupied by the US in the name of Wall Street or Nazi Germany, you can pick the US, but I'm going to pick neither and struggle.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

45. You need a definition.

There are a few, and you get different results depending on which definition you use.

Dictionary.com provides a number of definitions:
a -- Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class.
b -- Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.
c -- A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state (these three from the American Heritage dictionary)
d --a political orientation of a people or a government to maintain a strong military force and to be prepared to use it aggresively to defend or promote national interests

Absolute dollar amounts or number of soldiers is meaningless in these definitions, the terms are relative; Monaco could be more militaristic under all of these definitions than China or the US.

By (a) the US is not very militaristic at all. By (b), it depends on how you examine the numbers, but the US would rank fairly high--but not as high as many countries. Under (c) a lot of states rank high, and I can't determine how the US ranks in the cluster. Presumably we'd rank high under (d), unless we relativize 'strong'--in which case Somalia and Iran are higher.

So is the US militaristic? No, fairly, maybe, and yes. One person, four answers.

[aikoaiko]

50. No, I don't think spending per capita is the best measure.

but one could make the case. You'd have to explain why spending is a good measure of "militarism".

[grizmaster]

51. No, North Korea has us all beat in the modern world

maybe Sparta would give NK a run for their money too. If what the history books say is true it sounds like they were the ultimate military state.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Oh for fuck's sake, another one of these.

Have any of the people who post this schlock ever studied world history?

The US is not the most racist nation in the history of the world.

Nor the most militaristic.

Nor the most expansionist.

Most polluting? Yes.

Richest? Arguably. Depends on your metric.

But by all means, keep making shit up.

[kentuck]

59. Well, I guess that settles it....

We have heard the answer. :)

[htuttle]

60. No, it's just the stupidest one