Obama’s New Peacekeeper Army


Sending women into combat, like the end of the ban on official homosexuality, has been met with worried remarks about its impact on the “warrior culture.” But the new military that the left has been building for some time now is not interested in warriors; it wants peacekeepers.

The old army fought for a nation. The new one fights for vague concepts such as human rights or international law. Its goals are as intangible as those of the ideology it serves. It doesn’t fight actual enemies, but concepts and social problems. It fights against climate change, poverty and obesity. It fights for education, tolerance and the right of everyone to the gender of their choice. It isn’t really the army; it’s the hall monitors of the United Nations, the State Department, NATO and every liberal group on the planet.

Their ideal new soldier is not a warrior; he speaks three languages, appears non-threatening and can direct refugees, hand out aid to them and quickly pick up the local culture and religion. He is uncritical when witnessing child molestation, human sacrifice or any other quaint local custom. He is willing to die, not for his country, but to win the hearts and minds of the locals. He will not fire in self-defense if there is a single unarmed man, woman or child within twenty miles.

The new soldier is a policeman of the world, watching crimes that he isn’t allowed to stop. He is a diplomat with a gun. He isn’t there to shoot anyone, except as an absolute last resort. He is there, smiling and handing out candy, to convince the locals that even though we bombed their country, frightened their sheep and wiped out a lot of their smuggling income, that they should not hate the United States of America.

The old army projected the hard power of killing the people who wanted to fight us until they were either dead or willing to switch to competing with us by making transistor radios and electric shavers. The new army projects the soft power of winning over the locals so that they don’t want to fight us anymore. It’s not about winning wars; it’s about preventing the need for wars, even when already in the middle of a war.

To do all this our military has to become less American and more European, less imperial and more multilateral, an international consensus building exercise with bullets that aren’t meant to be fired. It has to become more tolerant and accepting. It has to lose the “warrior culture” and swap it in for the urban liberal culture that values consensus over performance and ideological conformity over all else.

The left is not comfortable with an army that is out of step with its values. A large standing army is a dangerous thing. Neutering it will take generations, but the left just won another four years in which it can have its way with national defense. And its way is to hollow out every institution, religion, workplace and family until they exist for no other reason than to pass on and implement its ideas.

The only way that liberals will ever accept the military is through the liberalization of the military into a force that projects their social values and fights to promote them abroad through human rights peacekeeping operations. And when the peacekeeping force arrives in Timbuktu, Aleppo or Ramallah, it has to carry with it the liberal standard and convey to all the natives that the United States is wonderful because it represents gay rights, girl power and the war on childhood obesity.

The natives will not be impressed, nor will the men and women who will have to do far more shooting and dying than the plan called for, but Washington D.C. will be gratified, and the worst of the bunch, the ones who eagerly take to the party line and do none of the fighting but all of the talking, will move up the promotion ladder. Those who do not will be tried for war crimes in a new army that reflects the liberal belief that war is the ultimate crime.

Much of this has already happened. The United States no longer fights wars, it engages in military reconstruction projects. The aftermath of World War II has become the template for every war with the conflict as a prelude to the nation-building exercise. Occupation becomes the purpose of war and also the bloodiest part of the war. And the wars can hardly even be called wars because they are never truly fought.

The “Shock and Awe” punch is always pulled as the jets fly overhead but never hit hard enough in the new soft power age. The war is taken to the enemy just enough to cost a lot of lives, but not enough to defeat him. Instead of a definite trajectory, there is only an endless twilight, a holding action being fought by a new generation of men realizing that like their fathers, they are no longer in it to win it.

The real war is being waged by politicians using troop deployments as counters for cobbling together coalitions of the people they are fighting into a working government. Yesterday’s insurgent is tomorrow’s ally arriving to be armed and trained as a police officer or soldier and the day after tomorrow’s enemy, unexpectedly turning his weapon on the men who trained him.

These are not the wars of a warrior culture, but of the police patrols in the more dangerous parts of Detroit, Miami or Chicago. Long senseless conflicts in which victory is not even a relevant concept, and the only hope for going home lies in following the rules of community policing when breaking bread and working out truces with the local gangs and their drug dealing warlords long enough for them to throw together a sham government that will allow Washington D.C. to declare another humanitarian mission accomplished.

The new general has all the problems of an empire, without any of the power and freedom of action of an empire. The new colonel is looking to write a book about the lessons he learned from meeting other cultures in the hopes of getting the attention of the boys upstairs who are always concerned with finding new ways of winning the hearts and minds of the people sending soldiers home in body bags. The new captain is growing a beard and learning Urdu. The new lieutenant is making sure that all the transsexual servicethings are comfortable and serving in a friendly welcoming environment. And the new soldier is there to represent a country that he no longer recognizes in a country where everyone is trying to kill him.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "He isn’t there to shoot anyone, except as an absolute last resort. He is there, smiling and handing out candy, to convince the locals that even though we bombed their country, frightened their sheep and wiped out a lot of their smuggling income, that they should not hate the United States of America."

    Candy ought to do it. Soon the military won't need any guns against foreign enemies. They can keep them for attacking conservatives at home.

  • Warrior6

    Then there's the part about making nice and establishing a presence on the future battlefield so we're better prepared when the shooting war begins…but we prefer not to talk about that too much.

  • g_jochnowitz

    In 1960, I dated a young woman who had served in the Israeli Army and had received a medal for bravery.

  • Chanameel

    Next thing ya know, they will recognize Hamas, as the official Palestinian government.

  • Anonymous

    I recall reading about the millions upon millions of dollars spent on Afghan road building. Soldiers would build roads to no where (utterly mindless), then after the construction, the militants would have a new-found area to plant improvised explosive devices (allowing more NATO troops to be either maimed or killed). Brilliant…if you're (like Obama) rooting for the Taliban.

  • http://twitter.com/USnavy1967 @USnavy1967

    When the death of an American soldier is questioned on what he/she did to provoke the killing by the enemy, well its time to call it quits. When the enemy is right and the American soldier is wrong, time to call it quits. When we become the UN police force, without guns, its time to quite. We have lost, they have won.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    I have been studying the late communist historian's history of the modern world, and found a strong affinity between Eric Hobsbawm's view of the future and that of POTUS. See http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-i…. "Hobsbawm, Obama, Israel." They both preach internationalism, a strong Green offensive, and redistribution from the rich nations to the poor nations. The latter of course were not underdeveloped but smashed by imperialism, according to the Hobsbawm-New Left thesis.So reparations are on the table.

    • Clare

      Yes, and since you have your own blog, why do you piggy-back off of here? I don't get it. It is really annoying. You are advertising you.

      5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

      • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

        I am the director of a 501©3 organization. And I am not paid for my blogging services. Are you paid for trolling and enforcing a leftist line that is at odds with Frontpagemagazine.com?

  • Moishe Pupick

    F., 01/25/13

    I remember reading that when psychiatrist (sic) Hassan began his massacre inside Fort Hood, no one
    could shoot him dead because strict "gun control" existed on that U.S. Army base. Huh!? Did all those brave men die on D-Day and at Iwo Jima for nothing? Rx= Impeachment in the House and trial with conviction in the Senate.

    • EarlyBird

      Yes, Moishe, because US military personnel choose to go unarmed for practical and safety reasons while on extremely well-guarded stateside bases, that means that our men who died on D-Day and Iwo Jima did so for nothing. It means every drop of patriotic American blood ever spilled means nothing, that it's the end of the Republic, the death of liberty, there is no hope, and somewhere in heaven George Washington weeps as he sees American ran over by Marxist leftists.

      Does that help?

  • Mary Sue

    what a role reversal. Canada used to be the useless peacekeepers. Now we have the "real" soldiers, and you guys are drifting into where we came from.

    • Jim_C

      Even France is bringing it in Algeria.

  • Jim_C

    The "new army" as Mr. Greenfield describes it is not some new lefty innovation but the very hallmark of the neoconservative vision of foreign policy, a vision championed by this site for over a decade. This is the vision that sees us as helpful partners enabling the freedom-craving people of the ME to overthrow their tyrants and tyrannical clerics.

    So it may not be the proper imagining of a military force, but it is one that has been in keeping with America's foreign policy blunders for the better part of half a century and no more so than in Iraq. It's fine criticism, but will this site now have its cake and eat it, too?

    • EarlyBird

      Thanks for the truth and sanity, Jim.

  • Ghostwriter

    No disrespect to Jim_C,but I think that President Obama might be an American version of Pierre Trudeau and I DON'T think the world needs that.

    • Mary Sue

      take it from me, he totally is. PET chummed around with Castro on vacation!

  • Glennd1

    Hmm, could it be that morality prevents us from fighting 'total war' in the conflicts we are in because these are not defensive wars? While our guys were dying from IEDs in Iraq – what was at risk at home in the U.S.? Nothing, there was no threat to us at all from Iraq, so it becomes kind of tough to go in and shoot anything that moved when that was the case. In fact, the author misses entirely what's really going on. Our new level of precision and our technological advantages are so outsized that we can now contemplate running these surgical kinds of wars, with highly articulated rules of engagement. We know we have to be respectful of existing political struggles because we have no business being there in the first place, so unlike say the Japanese, who acquiesced ultimately after being convinced of their national shame after their defeat in battle, and allowed us to erect a govt that was humane, we have no such moral authority in Iraq.

    The author is correct in some of his observations, and I do actually understand the warrior culture somewhat, having an entire family serve in very dangerous, front line roles from weapons officer in an f4, flyiing 500 ft off the deck, upside down in the mountains of the Korean DMZ, or intelligence operatives or Secret Service agents, my family is full of them. Such people should not be squandered on humanitarian nonsense. The military is also actually a tremendously expensive humanitarian operation, as they don't just do great logistics and have the ability to project a presence anywhere on earth quickly, they do so with a hardness and support system designed to engage in combat. I remember seeing the National Guard on the streets of New Orleans in the early response to Katrina, toting their M16s around – it's the wrong tool for the project.

    But to go on about it as this guy does is truly a spectacle, not journalism or analysis. One wonders if the author skipped a dose of something…

    • john

      There is reason to believe that one of the Oklahoma City Bombers, Terry Nichols, had some help from Iraqi agents of jihadis on his frequent trips to the Phillipines.

      Two jihadis have crossed the border with the intent of causing mass casualty events in the U.S. For example one guy wanted to bomb & shoot up a mall. He was convicted & he had crossed the border illegally twice.

      Hamas & others already have agents here to fund raise or acting as sleeper cells. They have their infrastructure set up in the border region or Brasil/Argentina& Paraguay, Venezuela, the Mexican Cartels & in Honduras.

      In Iraq, we should have left most of the civilian government in place at the bureaucrat & technocrat level. And just purged the top leaders. We would not have had a rebellion then. We ultimately won over the Sunni in Anbar. It would have been a little harder to run a fair election then, but It still would have worked.

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      Wow, you really beat the crap out of that immoral “total war” strawman. That kind of “surgical” fighting would fit right into Obama’s dream military. Who needs nukes to “shame” future Hirohtos into “acquiescing” when fallacious leftwing principles will project the same level of power. Just ask one of the Christians crucified by “Libyan freedom fighters” in Mauritania how well that works out.

      • Jim_C

        "Surgical fighting" was one of Donald Rumsfeld's objectives for streamlining the military in a post-Cold War world, before we got into Iraq. And just so you don't forget–on Sept. 12, 2001, Rumsfeld and Cheney were the only two people in the USA who thought "Now we can invade Iraq!"

        Rumsfeld, ironically, had the right idea, and would have been a great peacetime Sec. of Defense. Unfortunately for everyone, he held the position in wartime.

  • Glennd1

    But many of these trends and issues began long before the current president took office – or did you miss that somehow? Your endless prattling comes off as a bit mad, and discourages me from clicking a link to more of it. You speak of a 'national ethos' – when you actually mean nationalism, which you really have to be blind to not see emanating from Obama. He preaches, just in a different way about what's great about this country. They are busybodies on a scale heretofore unknown. The amount of innocents you kill isn't necessarily the best barometer of one's national verve – yet that's the construction your feral mind has to offer us. Do us a favor, focus on your nation's politics and the madmen in your own country – we can really do without your drivel, we won't miss a beat if you would do so, actually.

    • Clare

      Yes, and since you have your own blog, why do you piggy-back off of here? I don't get it. It is really annoying. I skip the first entry automatically because I know it's an advertisement for you.

      5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

    • EarlyBird

      Glen, Greenfield is a hack among hacks on this propaganda website. Even Greenfield knows that the reason our military no longer fights like it’s WWII, is because it’s not WWII and we have a different type of enemies and the military has transformed itself to fight those enemies. The “left” has had nothing to do with it, and Greenfield knows it. AND of course, our military remains extremely lethal.

  • xavier823

    I have taught so many students who have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan that I could start my own infantry company . Everyone of them has just about said exactly what this article has written. In both Iraq and Afghanistan we should gone in smashed our enemy without mercy and then left with a note to the survivors of both those hell holes that if the screw around with us again we will come back and kill even more of them next time. An army has two main purposes : 1) Defending its countries borders. 2) Making total war on our enemies. Anything else is waste of our armed forces.

    • Charose

      They let u enter in their country, let u kill, slaughter, butchered ,harrassed, physicaly and emotionally abused them; what a wonderful enemies who americans have who let u treat them the way u want it..how generous of them and still Americans media including world media call Muslims terrorists, Islamict or watever they want to…and we muslims are quite just listening to all of u..I wonder when this blaming game is gonna end.???. Have u ever wonder y so many veteran got depressed and suicidel when they got back from Iraq? And they ripped thier medals in front of everyone in media confrences..u can see those veteran on Youtube.

      • Mary Sue

        well, why are you not standing up and pointing "Psst hey, the terrorists are over there." Instead of whining about how Americans think Muslims are terrorists, why don't you prove the opposite by speaking against the terrorists and thus giving yourself some much-needed support (not to mention credibility)?

    • EarlyBird

      Xavier, you are speaking to frustrated soldiers, who realized they were sent on unwinnable missions, at least one which we unwinnable in a conventional sense. Even W. Bush stated that this would be "a different kind of war" when we didn't get clear victories. I have corresponded with a Marine lieutenant, now turned captain, and he's very frustrated that his biggest chore is organizing pick up of trash by the citizenry. But you know what? That's what fighting insurgencies are all about. It has nothing to do with the left's attempt to transform the military. Greenfield is just lying again.

  • Jack O'neil

    The Purge Continues – Stalin would be proud.
    Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fires-t

  • Ziggy Zoggy

    Daniel Greenfield, gay rights, girl power and the war on childhood obesity are all banners for a moonbat military but you left out atheism, or religious tolerance, or whatever the Obama approved euphemism is. Hearts and minds, friend.

  • EarlyBird

    More absurdity from Greenfield.

    The "left" hasn't transformed America's military; our enemies have. We haven't fought a standing army in massive and decisive battles for generations, because those enemies no longer exist. Instead, we have been fighting assymetrical wars where the enemy is made up of guerrilla units who work within the very society where our soldiers find themselves.

    To fight those complicated wars, we need people skilled in language, customs, winning hearts and minds – you know that limp-wristed, elitist "lefty" stuff. Counter-insurgency warfare often doesn't look like warfare at all. Had we simply mowed down Iraq and Afghanistan and left them bleeding, those countries now would be even more broken and even more controlled by terrroristst than they are today.

    Sorry the world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be, Greenfield, but don't blame the left for that.

  • psychology degree

    Hey, great blog, but I don’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Can you Help me please?
    <a title="psychology degree" href="http://degreeinpsychology.weebly.com/">psychology degree