Admittedly, at 48 I don’t have the vast years of experience some here may have, but when we think about clandestine ops today vs pre- Desert Storm I see a trend that I don’t particularly care for.
My theory is that pre -91 we used to handle this kind of business quietly. Think OSS capping death camp guards with P38s in the dark recesses of the forest, etc. I guess the Nuremberg trails were about as close as we see today, but these were footage driven and I don’t believe widely released. During Gulf 1, we came up with the playing cards with targets. Not a huge amount of fan fair when an HVT was hit, but it was the start of the trend IMO.
Fast forward to GWOT. Not only do we have cards, we have info on players in the news. Not just Bin Laden, etc but recruiters, bomb makers, et Al. The narrative is driven to create hatred and then when we take a piece off the board instead of being quiet professionals the fucking President or the office of White House/State Dept, etc . goes out and spikes the football. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying any of these guys taking a dirt nap is keeping me up at night, but we have regressed to the point that this is less like a war and more like a fucking video game. Killed X today with a drone strike, level up bitches. It’s gotten so bad that we just blow up some poor bastard driving home up with a hellfire, Prez comes out and claims victory and then a week later we realize we smoke Hamid the goat hearder and his four kids and completely missed the target for X reasons…. “Wait, Hamid didn’t have shit to do with the airport “ambush” we essentially invited upon ourselves?” Ooops, my bad. Move on.
Frankly, I’m fucking sick of it. Not sure what we should expect when we act like this.
Why a Standing Army and a Welfare State?
by
Jacob G. Hornberger One of the major distinguishing characteristics, philosophically speaking, between our American ancestors and today’s Americans is with respect to the national-security establishment. Our ancestors fiercely opposed that type of governmental structure. Today’s Americans vociferously support it.
That was why our ancestors chose to bring into existence a limited-government republic, one that only had a basic, relatively small military. If they had been told that the Constitution was going to bring into existence the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial complex, an empire of domestic and foreign military bases, the CIA, and the NSA, there is no doubt that they never would have approved the deal. That would have meant that the United States would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, a type of governmental structure whose powers were so few and limited that the federal government didn’t even have the power to tax.
That was the way our ancestors wanted it. Unlike today’s Americans, they didn’t want a powerful federal government. They wanted a weak federal government, one without a powerful military-intelligence force.
Why did our ancestors oppose so fiercely what they called a “standing army”? Because their view of government was totally different from the way that today’s Americans view government.
The biggest threat
Our ancestors believed that the greatest threat to people’s freedom and well-being lay not with some foreign danger but rather with their very own government. They understood that historically the way that governments enslaved and controlled their citizenry was through a powerful military. Whenever the citizenry had to be “put into line,” the military would be there to do the job.
Our ancestors understood that soldiers obey orders. When they are ordered to establish “order,” they can be counted on to do so. Consider the words of Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws of England: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
The Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788 stated that “standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided,” The Pennsylvania Convention stated that “standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.”
America’s founding system
A limited-government republic was not only our nation’s founding governmental system. It also remained our nation’s governmental system for the next 150 years, until modern-day Americans converted the federal government into a national-security state, a type of governmental system in which the military-intelligence establishment wields omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers.
It should be noted that not only was there no vast, permanent military-intelligence establishment during the first century and a half of our nation’s existence, there was also no income taxation, Federal Reserve, fiat (i.e., paper) money, immigration controls, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, gun control, education grants, public schooling systems, drug war, and other aspects of the welfare-state way of life that characterizes America today. Our ancestors simply did not want the government to be taking care of them.
America today
Obviously, today’s Americans view the federal government in a totally different way. They love the Pentagon, the vast military establishment, the empire of military bases, the CIA, and the NSA. They are convinced that all this keeps them safe from foreign threats, which they consider to be their paramount danger.
That’s why they like the fact that their military and intelligence officials wield such omnipotent powers as state-sponsored assassination, torture, indefinite detention, denial of due process, and mass secret surveillance, which, ironically, are the same types of powers wielded by totalitarian regimes. They simply cannot imagine any scenario in which such powers would ever be turned inward against them, even as they watch their military-intelligence officials install, partner with, and support brutal dictatorships in foreign lands.
Today’s Americans also believe that it is the role of the federal government to take care of people. That’s why Americans today live under a welfare state and its programs of income taxation, the Federal Reserve, immigration controls, trade restrictions and trade wars, Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, farm subsidies, education grants, gun control, fiat (i.e., paper money), and other welfare-state programs. Unlike our American ancestors, today’s Americans define freedom by the extent to which the government is taking care of them.
Going forward
Today, America is besieged by crises, chaos, and dysfunction. Federal spending and debt are out of control and hurtling the nation toward bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve is printing money like it was going out of style. Healthcare was in crisis long before the Covid-19 pandemic. Immigration crisis. Education crisis. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. North Korea. State-sponsored assassinations. Torture. Indefinite detention. Denial of due process. Military tribunals. Mass secret surveillance. Unexplainable acts of mass violence. Drug addiction. Alcoholism. Ever increasing rates of suicide, including among young people.
Who was right — our American ancestors or modern-day Americans? Take a look around you. It’s not difficult to figure out the answer to that question.
Americans today need to do some serious soul-searching, especially before it’s too late. The question everyone needs to ponder is: What do we do going forward? Do we continue on this road to destruction of our liberty and well-being or do we restore our nation’s founding principles of liberty, independence, self-reliance, voluntary charity, and a limited-government republic?
valiantnews.com 
