don't think ROTC members will hurt the rest of the campus. I simply don't think the military needs to be on a college campus geared to learning.
Thats not an answer for why they s/b excluded from ordinary universities. I guess you can't verbalize whatever your reason is.
I don't think the military, an org. for war, should share a campus geared to learning. Its an aesthetic contradiction IMO.
There are three or four. If they are not big enough, expand them.
Wouldn't that be a waste of money to duplicate facilities that are already available? Seem at all costs, keep them away from civilians is your policy but we don't know why.
No, our universities are growing in any case with or without the expansion of military universities.
Before WW I, we were more pacifistic......not a Sweden but more like an AU. We'd fight if we had to but we'd preferred not.
Heard about the Spanish-American war and the Philippine insurrection - the longest war in our history and a counter insurgency in a 3rd world country. Both were totally unnecessary. No good reason for either from our standpoing. Oh sure, Cuba got its independence, PR became part of the US, Philippines wasn't colonized by Japan - so the peoples there benefited but it did little for America.
By 1876, the authorized size for the American army was 27k. For a country the size we were then, that's a pretty small army and is typical of more pacifistic states:
"General Grant, the General in Chief, wanted to increase the Regular Army, kept small during the Civil War, to 80,000 men, but neither Secretary Stanton nor Congress would agree. Congress, on July 28, 1866, voted an establishment of 54,302 officers and enlisted men. Actual strength reached about 57,000 on September 30, 1867, a peak for the whole period down to 1898. In 1869 Congress cut the number of infantry regiments to 25 and the authorized strength to 45,000; in 1876 the regimental tables of organization were reduced so as to limit the total authorized force to 27,442, an authorization that remained virtually stationary until the Spanish-American War. A significant effect of the Civil War on the new organization of the Army was a provision in the 1866 act for four Negro infantry regiments, which were reduced to two in 1869, and two Negro cavalry regiments, though most of their officers would be white. In 1877, Henry O. Flipper of Thomasville, Georgia, became the first Negro graduate of West Point and was assigned to one of these regiments, the 10th Cavalry."
history.army.mil
Anyway this belies the idea America was pacifistic before WWI. And btw I haven't mentioned the numerous Latin American interventions during this period but there were a lot of them. Not sure they were very important or necessary either.
Any militarism we expressed was to protect our borders and not to invade foreign countries because we thought we were God's chosen global police cop.
However, that all changed after WW II...I am not sure why.....Pearl Harbor, the atom bomb, the rise of the USSR as a world power......whatever it was
We became the dominant and responsible world power - thats what changed after WWII. It was a question whether most of the world was going to fall to a communist system hostile to us or not. No one else could really step up. So we did.
Most of the world was not ready to fall to communism. That was a boogeyman created by the right to scare Americans into compliance.
We don't wield power well.......we've made some big blunders.
Actually we're the most benevolent world power in human history. Nobody has wielded power as well. The Brits maybe were close during their empire days.
Making that statement suggests you don't know the history of American involvement in foreign countries. For an example, blanketing a country with Agent Orange in order to stem an ~ism that scared the bejezus out of us is not a symptom of benevolence. |
