My Stance on Military Action by the United States

You want to know what our most precious and limited resource is?

Young men and women willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our country. When we run out of them, we will be dust, along with Bablyon and Nineveh and Tyre.

So when our leaders start talking about acts of war, I want to know what vital self interest we will be defending that is worth the expenditure of however many of our most precious resource it takes.

I want to see a plan of campaign that displays a clear path to victory - and understand that 'Victory" means the other side is either wiped out or gives up because they plainly have no other options. I want it clearly defined what "Victory" will look like, so that people with a reasonable understanding of the situation can tell if it is achievable or not, and whether it is worth spending our most precious resource to try to attain.

I want to see a plan of campaign that remembers Sun Tzu's adage that the moral is to the physical as ten to one. I want to see a reason why our troops will have a moral and morale advantage, and why that advantage will do nothing but grow. This has destroyed us in every single military action of my lifetime.

I want to see the military free of political constraints on their objectives beyond the most basic "don't attack our allies unless you catch them aiding our enemies." If you have to impose political constraints on the military, none of the above requirements apply to the situation - you're playing politics, not fighting a war, and the lives of our military service folk are far too important for politics.

There has been not one military action in my lifetime that was not playing politics instead of fighting a war - and that very pointedly includes Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Global War on Terror. Even clearly necessary actions have been hamstrung by political considerations, which is why we have won every significant battle and lost every single war in my lifetime, at a grievous cost in our most precious national resource.

I'm not military veteran. But I have undertaken an awful lot of study, from Sun Tzu through Frederick and Napoleon and Clausewitz and all the campaigns since, tempered by a study of logistics and economics. I may not be up to the standards of the Military War College - but those men and women are bound to obey the chain of command and not to contradict that chain of command. I, on the other hand, am free to disagree with that chain of command.

This has been my consistent stance throughout my entire adult life.

So when I blast any politician's stance or actions on proposed military action by the United States, you know where I'm coming from.

Trump's attack on Syria (like Obama's in Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and even Afghanistan) does not have a coherent strategy, a reasonable path to victory, or even a clear articulation of what victory would look like. It is a counterproductive waste of American lives and resources. It may not be impeachable under the Constitution, but it is certainly a reason not to support him for re-election if it continues. The fact that he did so at all is certainly a mark against him when I consider my next set of ballot choices.