Not
Your Father's Army: No, Ladies And Gentlemen - Imperialist
Americans
Writers Articles And Opinions
7 February 2010
By Chuck Baldwin
Most of us Americans have a deep and abiding respect
and admiration for our country's fighting men who have
served--and are serving--within the US Armed Forces.
We appreciate their willingness to put themselves in
harm's way for the preservation of our nation's
liberty and independence. We honor their sacrifice.
Indeed, many of us share that sacrifice with the
deaths, dismemberments, and paralysis of our most
cherished loved ones who were killed or injured in the
line of duty.
It is time, however, that we awaken to the reality of
what our military is becoming and where it is heading.
Suffice it to say, this is not your father's army.
On December 8, 1941, my father, Ed Baldwin--along with
his two brothers, Bud and Gene--marched down to a
recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enlist.
The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the day before,
and no branch of service had to beg people to enlist
that day. Bud joined the Navy. Gene joined the
Marines. When government officials saw Dad's resumé,
they selected him to help construct the atomic bomb.
All three brothers served their country with
distinction throughout the war.
But what all of us need to realize is, World War II
was the last constitutionally fought war in which
America has been engaged. The United Nations was
created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our
military forces have increasingly become the
"peacekeeping" arm of that evil institution.
Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in
South Korea, South Vietnam (including Laos and
Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), Iraq,
Afghanistan, and now Pakistan--all for the benefit of
the United Nations. Add to these major wars lesser
conflicts (except to those Americans killed or wounded
in them) such as Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Congo
(Zaire), Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras,
Chad, Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Saudi Arabia,
Macedonia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, and
Somalia. And this does not take into account the
countless CIA-sponsored Black Ops missions that have
taken place all over the world.
Yes, American forces have been used to both put people
in power and take people out of power all over the
world. And as often as not, the people we put in power
were counted among the "bad guys," while the people we
removed from power were "good guys." Remember, our own
CIA was the organization most responsible for the rise
to power of Osama Bin Laden. And it was the US
government that surreptitiously set up the murder of
Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who was one of the best friends the
United States had overseas. Plus, does anyone remember
how the US treated our friend, the Shah of Iran? Yes,
some of us are old enough to remember when Iran was
one of the best friends we had in that region of the
world.
But mind you, not one single war in which American
forces have been engaged since WWII has been
constitutionally fought. Not one!
Ever since the United Nations was created, its
interests have dominated the usage of US forces. In
fact, our military today is quickly morphing into the
tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World
Order. To those with eyes to see, the evidence is
everywhere. It's not even being hidden anymore. Have
you seen that new US Navy television commercial? It
boldly proclaims, "The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For
Good." (Emphasis added.)
This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order
has changed (and is changing) our US military right
before our eyes. It has taken the greatest and
proudest independent fighting force in the world--one
created to defend the people and property of the
United States--and turned it into a global military
policeman for the evil Machiavellians at the UN.
In order to convert the US military into a true
"Global Force," several changes are being forced upon
our fighting men.
First, more and more women are entering the US
military.
Currently, women comprise about 20% of military
personnel. And for the first time in US history, women
are actively engaged in combat units in the current
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive integration
of women in combat may serve the interests of
political correctness, but it does not serve the
interests of combat effectiveness. Neither does it
serve the interests of family and child rearing. And I
don't care how old fashioned that sounds!
Wives and mothers are the backbone of family
nurturing. To willingly take mothers away from their
children--and subject both mother and child to the
separation and suffering that military life
demands--is both unnatural and cruel.
And there is another stark reality that few people
want to discuss: the fact that 30% of all women in the
US military are raped. Yes, you read it right: 30%.
According to NPR, "In 2003, a survey of female
veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in
the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were
seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found
that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually
assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of
female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found
that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."
Government and military brass know that the
introduction of women into the military environment
(especially the combat environment) is reaping
problems of epidemic proportions, but they are
deliberately ignoring and even covering them up.
For example, does anyone recall the name Jamie Leigh
Jones? According to ABC News, "A Houston, Texas woman
says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/ KBR coworkers
in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government
are covering up the incident.
"Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was
raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone,
the company put her under guard in a shipping
container with a bed and warned her that if she left
Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job."
And this story leads into another phenomenon being
created within this New World Order army: the way our
government and military are increasing their use of
"private" or "independent" contractors. In the past,
these people were always known simply as mercenaries.
Call them what you will, mercenaries are now a major
component of the way our government wages war.
According to Global Research, "The growing use of
private armies not only subjects target populations to
savage warfare but makes it easier for the White House
to subvert domestic public opinion and wage wars.
"Americans are less inclined to oppose a war that is
being fought by hired foreign mercenaries, even when
their own tax dollars are being squandered to fund it.
"'The increasing use of contractors, private forces,
or, as some would say, "mercenaries, " makes wars
easier to begin and to fight--it just takes money and
not the citizenry,' said Michael Ratner, of New York's
Center for Constitutional Rights. 'To the extent a
population is called upon to go to war, there is
resistance, a necessary resistance to prevent wars of
self-aggrandizement , foolish wars, and, in the case
of the United States, hegemonic imperialist wars.'"
Remember, at any given moment, there might be as
many--if not more--mercenaries fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan as there are US military forces. For
example, according to the Christian Science Monitor,
in early 2008, the number of mercenaries fighting in
Iraq numbered more than 190,000. Remember, in addition
to the benefit of not drafting US citizens to fight
these perpetual wars (and thus avoid incurring the
wrath and resistance of the American public),
mercenaries enjoy the luxury of not having to comply
with the military rules of engagement. And the stories
of atrocities committed by US-employed mercenaries in
Iraq and Afghanistan are too numerous to list.
In addition to the Jamie Jones case mentioned above,
consider the case where Blackwater (now called Xe)
mercenaries mowed down 17 Iraqi citizens in an
unprovoked attack. And, of course, no one at
Blackwater was held accountable for these murders.
Reports of abuse, cruelty, and savagery by mercenaries
in Iraq are commonplace. According to the Global
Research report, "Many soldiers of fortune on private
payrolls previously served dictators in South Africa,
Chile, and elsewhere."
The Washington Post quotes Brigadier General Karl
Horst, an advisor to the U.S. Joint Force Command as
saying, "These guys [mercenaries] run loose in this
country [Iraq] and do stupid stuff. There's no
authority over them, so you can't come down on them
hard when they escalate force . . . They shoot people,
and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It
happens all over the place."
And you wonder why the United States is viewed so
negatively around the world?
Granted, there is a place and proper use for
mercenaries. Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor of The
Progress Report, rightly observes, "One alternative to
U.S. military action against terrorists who have
attacked the U.S. and other countries, and are
threatening further attacks, is to enact Letters of
Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph
11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to
'grant letters of Marque and Reprisal and make rules
concerning captures on land and water.' A 'reprisal'
means an action taken in return for some injury. A
reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty
persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It
could include forces used against the perpetrators for
the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even
involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further
harm and cannot be captured.
"'Marque' is related to 'marching' and means crossing
or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal.
So a letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a
private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to
conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the
U.S.A.
"Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S.
Constitution, but also by international law, which is
why it was able to be included in the Constitution.
The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or
subjects of one country are injured by those in
another country and justice is denied by the
government of that country, as happened with the
attack by persons who were in Afghanistan. "
See Foldvary's column at:
http://www.progress .org/fold232. htm
And that is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul
attempted to do. He proposed H.R. 3076, the September
11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the
U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. See Dr.
Paul's Press Release at:
However, neither the Congress nor the White
House--Democrat or Republican-- has any intention of
following the Constitution; therefore, Letters of
Marque and Reprisal were never authorized. As a
result, no authority has been granted to these
mercenaries to wage war on behalf of anyone,
especially not the people of the United States.
But what unauthorized mercenaries do accomplish is to
fulfill the demands of internationalists and
globalists to use unaccountable and uncontrolled (at
least by normal military protocols) private armies for
their own personal and nefarious purposes.
The next step for our politically correct "Global
Force" is the authorization for homosexuals to serve
openly in the US military. This has long been the goal
of globalists, and it is now about to happen.
It was globalist President Bill Clinton who introduced
the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allows
homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces--but not
openly. Of course, this was a major departure from US
military history. From George Washington's Continental
army until the Clinton administration, homosexuality
was deemed "incompatible" with military service. And
now globalist Barack Obama is leading Congress to
change the policy even further by allowing homosexuals
to serve openly in the US military.
However, please consider this: if our governmental and
military leaders would cover up the raping of American
servicewomen by servicemen, don't you know that they
will cover up the raping of American servicemen by
homosexual servicemen? Mark this down: mixing sex
(heterosexual or homosexual) and military service is a
recipe for disaster. And the potential damage
inflicted upon military units (especially combat
units) is exacerbated exponentially by the
introduction of large numbers of homosexuals and women
into those units. (This is the universal sentiment of
virtually every active duty or retired serviceman I
have ever spoken with.) But it does fit perfectly into
the plans of the New World Order architects, who want
to use the US military as much for the advancement of
their politically correct agenda as they do for any
actual military purpose.
Plus, dare I mention how that many violent gangs in
North America are encouraging their members to join
the US military in order to learn tactics and skills,
which enable them to more effectively inflict their
criminality upon the American people? Well, it's true.
And our military brass knows it's true, and yet they
still allow these thugs to enter our military.
Hispanic gang members, especially, are entering the US
military in droves.
According to a report in The American Conservative
magazine, "[R]ecent figures indicate that gang
membership in the Armed Forces significantly surpasses
civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to
2 percent of the military are gang members, compared
to 0.02 percent of the general population."
No, ladies and gentlemen, it is not your father's
army. And, sadly, while many of our fine military
leaders (not to mention many of our active duty
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of
this taking place, they are practically powerless to
stop it, because political correctness and globalism
run rampant in Washington, D.C., including at the
Pentagon.
Save
Add Comments To This Story