Home > Announcements, aside, politics > Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010, by Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in International Security

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010, by Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in International Security

Larry from Bear Canada just passed along a copy of this report detailing instances of use of U.S. armed forces abroad from 1798-2010.  Thought it would be interesting to share this with everyone.  I’ve also placed this in the our Recommended Reading List, which is grossly incomplete, but does give some reference to some interesting reads.Here is the link to the report:

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010 (Richard F. Grimmett Specialist in International Security – March 10, 2011)

  1. July 6th, 2011 at 15:31 | #1

    Now that the Cold War is over, I wish the U.S. being the sole superpower would lead the world, and especially in the context of military adventures abroad, only do so within the context of the U.N.. Libya is an example of a hegemonic institution, U.S.-lead NATO, abusing U.N. rules. Continuing that behavior, the U.S. and NATO are perpetrating a world culture of might is right. And, that is clearly not leadership.

    If the U.S. leaves that gap unfulfilled, then it is a squandered opportunity.

    Some other country will have to step up.

  2. raventhorn2000
    July 6th, 2011 at 15:52 | #2

    Technically, US is a military dictatorship by the definition of its own laws.

    The US president has the unquestioned power to mobilize military without the consent of the elected Congress.

    Clinton and Obama are only 2 recent examples, where they have violated the War Power Act, but Congress could not challenge them.

    US Supreme Court has refused cases setting limits of War power of the President.

    By every sense of the term, US qualifies as a military dictatorship (regardless of how popular its government may be), because the real power to command the military is NOT in the hand of the civilian leaders, but in the hand of the Commander-in-chief (a single branch of the government without checks or balances).

  3. raventhorn2000
    July 12th, 2011 at 06:25 | #3

    http://www.businessinsider.com/france-qaddafi-2011-7

    France getting cold feet about the ongoing unsuccessful bombing of Libya, and now openly calling for negotiations with Qaddafi.

    (BTW, I predicted France would be the 1st to quit. The French are easy to get into a fight, but also easy to quit.)

  4. raventhorn2000
    July 12th, 2011 at 18:38 | #4

    In the same breath, France is now talking tough about Syria, cheerleading US criticisms of Syria.

    Looks like France is just messing around with its war toys here and there.

    *One of these days, one of these countries will take some kind of revenge on France. It’s a matter of time.

    This is hardly the kind of win friends type of diplomacy that France is doing. It’s the jerking around kind of diplomacy.

  5. raventhorn2000
    July 13th, 2011 at 08:13 | #5

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/libyan-rebels-run-riot-20110713-1he6i.html

    Libyan Rebels conducted purge on Qaddafi loyalist town after taking it.

    Where were the NATO “protect the civilian” forces??

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.