Customer Reviews

The Minuteman: Returning to an Army of the People

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Clear and thought provoking. Grounded in American and European history of armed defense in relation to healthy citizenship. Looks at what has worked to strengthen democracies (small standing army, large trained militia), and what has not (large standing armies or military-industrial complex and a distanced citizenry) from ancient Greece through the Persian Gulf war.

I was surpised that a Democrat congressman would feel so strongly about issues of individual freedom, citizenship, and a sound military for the true health and safety of America. Gary Hart speaks with respect and passion.

Too many commentators jump to the conclusion that the citizen soldier approach will not work in today's world. Yet history if packed with appropriate examples. Gary Hart only addresses this concept in terms of America. But if we want a safe world that we don't have to engage in every firefight, then we have to go beyond America and encourage and support all countries to develop similar strong, part-time citizen based militias.

Mr. Hart states a clear case that a large standing army invites foreign adventurism and political subterfuge. A citizen based militia is more truly defense oriented, reluctant to fight unless given clear and sound reasons, eager to disperse when the mission is completed, and appreciative of the sacrifice that wars require in life and funding.

The only reason I did not give it five stars is because it did not extend the logic fully to that of supporting other nations in a similar endeavor for a truly strong alliance; and to the individual citizen for armed self-defense and the positive effect a large number of armed, law-abiding citizens has on public safety. Gary Hart's book, "The Minuteman" is very good within its scope of America's military policy and accountability to its citizens.

When you read this book you'll know why the Military Industrial Complex did everything to sabotage and destroy his political career.

Why is our military budget as high as during the Cold War? Why do we have 1,500,000 sailors and soldiers with no major threat to our country? This book tries to answer these questions.

The US historically had two armies: a Regular Army of professional soldiers, and a citizen army variously known as militia, National Guard, Organized Reserves, selectees. Each represents a political outlook: centralized national government for the first, a decentralized popular government for the latter.

A permanent standing military seeks causes for its continued existence, and resources to maintain itself. An army of the people would debate its purpose and use; and will be anxious to return to civilian life.

Historically, standing armies have resulted in military coups, civil wars, and oppression of the common people. You can read about this in the history books, or in today's newspapers that carry foreign news.

In 1783 Congress requested Washington's views for a peacetime military establishment. Washington relied on the advice of Von Steuben, who advocated a Swiss system of citizen soldiers as most appropriate to democracies. J.M. Palmer also recommended that the national defense force should be well-trained citizens rather than standing army professionals in keeping the military establishment democratic.

A quote from J.M. Palmer is important. "A free state cannot continue to be democratic in peace and autocratic in war. Standing armies threaten government by the people, not because they consciously seek to pervert liberty, but because they relieve the people themselves of the duty of self-defense. A people accustomed to let a special class defend them must sooner of later become unfit for liberty."

Sen Hart has written an important book dealing with one of the most important, yet least talked about issues this nation will face in the next century. I enjoyed his historical analysis of citizen-soldiers and how they relate to our republic. His closing chapter "A Modest Proposal" has the beginning of a good idea how to manage our defense machine into the 21st century, however there are key elements he did not address. The most important of these is the volunteers. The "dirty little secret" of the American military today is that it is very diffcult to find young people who want to serve in the military, active or reserve. Unitl we solve the recruiting crisis restructing the military will be very difficult.

What an intriguing book! I knew so little about Gary Hart before picking up this book, and now I see why the media was pulled into the effort to discredit him the way they were. What he has to say is important, powerful, and threatening to the status quo, the powers that be, and those who benefit from the long-standing Standing Army that is far larger and far more removed from the citizen than is healthy for us as a nation. I bought the book because of the title and my growing interest in the "militia" movement. My interest in the "militia" movement comes from my background as an army brat, closer to the military than many people. I am aware of how big the military is. I spent my life as a young adult struggling with poverty as a single mother, and I learned how much money goes into "defense" as opposed to how much goes into the social services that we so desperately needed. And I had to ask myself, with all the money that goes into defense, why are women and children so unsafe? Why are we so at risk? Why are domestic violence and child abuse such a major epidemic in this country, when so much of our tax money goes into defense? There's a lie in this double-think somewhere, and I think I'm beginning to understand what and where it is.

Gary Hart's vision takes us to a place where we can be joined together as a nation again, as a community of families that is truly invested in our own defense, in our own protection, and not in the protection of corporate raiders who care nothing for the individuals who make up this nation. It is not about the priorities of Employers, but the priorities of the people of this country, who are supposed to be the real leaders in a democracy. More people need to read this book. And they need to read it fast. It's almost too late already. The standing army that plays the tune we dance to is a growing menace to anything we think we still believe in. I wish I had the chance to vote for Gary Hart today.

"We should undertake military reform while the economy is growing and we are at peace -- 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' -- by replacing much of our permanent standing military with well-trained and well-equipped National Guard and reserve forces, a national militia."

What a brilliant idea. There would have been no Vietnam. That, in itself, is testament to its brilliance.

Hart begins by noting that we have gone from a country traditionally suspicious of standing professional armies to a situation that he describes as "Eisenhower's Nightmare" -- a military industrial complex so powerful that despite the end of the cold war it chugs on almost unabated. Hart's proposal is a military something like the Swiss model: universal service, with a very large force of part-time citizen soldiers backing up a professional military much smaller than at present. The proposal is interesting, but the most thought-provoking part of Hart's book is his critique of the current system, in which he concludes that maybe the Framers weren't crazy to fear a standing professional army, and that maybe we should too.

This book provides a lot of in-depth background to our current system of defense and the "military-industrial complex." Gary Hart explains what it means to be a citizen and how implementing an army of the people would boost security and patriotism, while lessen the possibility of full-scale war. This is an important book and should be mandatory college-level reading in hopes that the current generation of young people can strive to implement Hart's idealistic yet realistic approach to civic service.

Gary Hart makes a good point: The relationship between the citizenry and its military is important. If you don't take this book too seriously (e.g. as an actual policy proposal), but think of it in more philosophical terms, it really makes you wonder. Our fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers/etc were citizen-soliders, who saw war and military service as a part of life. They saw the death & destruction that war brought, and so came back with a profound appreciation for life. As the military becomes more professional, it becomes more clinical. They happen behind a sheet, in secret. Will future generations continue down a path of hedonism, with no concept of sacrifice?

Being a member of "Gen X," I've oftened said that what our generation needs is a good draft. A dose of sacrifice would certainly make us more appreciative. Yet, would such a draft be practical? Probably not. Barring some huge disaster, a professional military (and hedonistic youth) are probably here to stay.

This book is good, not as a practical proposal, but because it makes one think about an oft-neglected issue. It is very well-written, and easily digestible.

On a side note, at one point Mr. Hart makes a parenthetical note about the National Guard, that this is what the 2nd ammendment is "really about!" Whatever your feelings on gun control are, this comment was unnecessary and out of place. I've docked him a star for ego.

In one of Mr. Hart's classic works on military reform he calls for a return to the militia form as the backbone of the US military as it once was. It is an idea not given nearly the attention it should have and this concise work provides a great starting point for anyone interested in real and meaningful military reform. Conservatives should take up the mantle and follow through but instead, sadly, they will probably continue to ignore Mr. Hart. This kind of reform is so often dismissed out of hand before it can be taken the least bit seriously. So we will continue down the path of ever greater government growth for a bloated and intervention-prone military. Sad, but Mr. Hart seems to be the modern day Cassandra providing prophetic and valuable insight that most ignore.

An interesting work but losses sight of the current operational tempo of today's forces. It is the politicians, usually the President, who commit America's forces. By some accounts, the regular forces are deployed in over a hundred countries. Some commitments such as Korea and Bosnia are long lasting. That may be the real issue for our current force structure. Some studies already belive they are stretched thin. If the current policies continue, is it realistic to assume that the reserve forces, leaving jobs and families, can support the various deployments and obligations? Then again, maybe this plan would force a reassessment of today's military deployments.

After more than 20 years with the Active Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve, I submit that Mr. Hart has missed a realistic assessment of some of the critical relationships that affect Guard and Reserve units, and would continue to affect them if his notions were to be implemented. If Guard and Reserve units were to play a more active role in national defense, they would, as Hart recognizes (as we all recognize), need to have more than the current 40 or so days a year of training to achieve and sustain proficiency. Yet one of the biggest conflicts that most Guard and Reserve unit members face is dealing with full-time employers who are effectively competing for these employee/soldiers' time. To ask employers to provide still more "flexibility" is really asking them to underwrite this "Minuteman" concept. Already we have enormous conflict in this area. We see many civilian (and even government) employers finding creative reasons to be rid of employees who are Guard and Reserve members, while others make it clear that such service is incompatible with the expectations of civilian jobs. It is only wishful thinking to believe that the federal government provides meaningful defense of Guard and Reserve members who are "creatively removed" from their jobs over such conflicts. There are already many Guard and Reserve units whose members are activated and away from home areas for months at a time. The costs to employers are enormous. Author Hart cannot seem to intelligently reconcile this with his proposal, and it is a noble one, of true citizen-soldiery.