Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Are All The Reasons Why The Cia And Military Exists?

CIA Military Society Politics

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 15 October 2016 - 06:21 AM

What are all of them?



#2 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7947 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:29 PM

I think, the question of why the several branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) of the US military and Central Intelligence Agency exist are more political and historical questions than sociological ones, but I’ll try to answer from the perspective of all these academic disciplines.

Historically and Politically, the Navy and Marines because the Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates “to provide and maintain a Navy” as a power of Congress. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, the Marine Corp is was originally considered part of the Navy - the folks with portable guns who would get off the ships vs the one that sailed the ships and manned their big guns. Strictly speaking the Constitution doesn’t compel Congress to create a Navy, and the US didn’t have one from 1783 to 1794 (and didn’t have any actual ships ‘til 1797), but it was realized that without one, US trading ships were in danger of piracy, and the US has had one ever since. (Source: Wikipedia article “United States Navy”)

The same Section of the Constitution empowers Congress with “calling forth the Militia”, which mean create an Army, though it limits how long an Army can exist before Congress must re-authorize it to 2 years. That is, Congress is only supposed to create an Army when one is needed to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Between such needs, a small number of Army officers would be continuously trained at the US Military Academy and military academies in each State, so that if an Army was suddenly needed, they could quickly and effectively train and lead recruits. The early (ca 1780) US government was largely mistrustful of Armies, seeing them as a way that a few powerful leaders might take overthrow the US’s democratic government and establish an European monarchy-style dictatorship. Still, small Armies were authorized by congress almost continuously for a series of small and large wars, including with many Native American nations (1776-1924), England (1812-1815), Mexico (1846-1848). Then there was the then largest in US history American Civil War (1861-1865), the small and short Spanish-American war (1898), the then largest WW II (1914-1918), WW II (1939-1945), followed by a series of small wars, Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1955-1975), Iraq (1991, 2003), and Afghanistan (2003). (Source: Wikipedia article “United States Army”)

The 4th and newest branch of the US military, the Air Force, exists because of a major reorganization of the US military by Congress split it from the Army, the National Security Act of 1947.

The US Central Intelligence Agency exists primarily for organization and efficiency reasons. Prior to its creation by Congress in 1947, each branch of the military had its own intelligence (AKA spy) system. They were combined, and the CIA created, by the same National Security Act of 1947 that created the Air Force.

Perhaps more important than the legislative history of the US military is the legislative of paying for the US military. Prior to 1913, calling up a large army was difficult for Congress, because it was necessary for them, and the legislatures of the States, to raise money to pay for the Armies. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes”, leading to it eventually having much more tax revenue than before, allowing it to have pay for large, permanent military.

Clearly, the US government has for many decades been much less mistrustful of having a large, permanent military than it was in 1780.

The sociology and psychology that give rise to people creating governments that create militaries is, I think, simple compared to many sociological and psychological theories. People create governments, and expect and consent to them to create militaries, in large part to satisfy our desire for safety, one of our most primary drives. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, safety needs are second only to physiological needs – water, food, shelter, etc.

#3 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:58 PM

I think, the question of why the several branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) of the US military and Central Intelligence Agency exist are more political and historical questions than sociological ones, but I’ll try to answer from the perspective of all these academic disciplines.

Historically and Politically, the Navy and Marines because the Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates “to provide and maintain a Navy” as a power of Congress. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, the Marine Corp is was originally considered part of the Navy - the folks with portable guns who would get off the ships vs the one that sailed the ships and manned their big guns. Strictly speaking the Constitution doesn’t compel Congress to create a Navy, and the US didn’t have one from 1783 to 1794 (and didn’t have any actual ships ‘til 1797), but it was realized that without one, US trading ships were in danger of piracy, and the US has had one ever since. (Source: Wikipedia article “United States Navy”)

The same Section of the Constitution empowers Congress with “calling forth the Militia”, which mean create an Army, though it limits how long an Army can exist before Congress must re-authorize it to 2 years. That is, Congress is only supposed to create an Army when one is needed to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Between such needs, a small number of Army officers would be continuously trained at the US Military Academy and military academies in each State, so that if an Army was suddenly needed, they could quickly and effectively train and lead recruits. The early (ca 1780) US government was largely mistrustful of Armies, seeing them as a way that a few powerful leaders might take overthrow the US’s democratic government and establish an European monarchy-style dictatorship. Still, small Armies were authorized by congress almost continuously for a series of small and large wars, including with many Native American nations (1776-1924), England (1812-1815), Mexico (1846-1848). Then there was the then largest in US history American Civil War (1861-1865), the small and short Spanish-American war (1898), the then largest WW II (1914-1918), WW II (1939-1945), followed by a series of small wars, Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1955-1975), Iraq (1991, 2003), and Afghanistan (2003). (Source: Wikipedia article “United States Army”)

The 4th and newest branch of the US military, the Air Force, exists because of a major reorganization of the US military by Congress split it from the Army, the National Security Act of 1947.

The US Central Intelligence Agency exists primarily for organization and efficiency reasons. Prior to its creation by Congress in 1947, each branch of the military had its own intelligence (AKA spy) system. They were combined, and the CIA created, by the same National Security Act of 1947 that created the Air Force.

Perhaps more important than the legislative history of the US military is the legislative of paying for the US military. Prior to 1913, calling up a large army was difficult for Congress, because it was necessary for them, and the legislatures of the States, to raise money to pay for the Armies. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes”, leading to it eventually having much more tax revenue than before, allowing it to have pay for large, permanent military.

Clearly, the US government has for many decades been much less mistrustful of having a large, permanent military than it was in 1780.

The sociology and psychology that give rise to people creating governments that create militaries is, I think, simple compared to many sociological and psychological theories. People create governments, and expect and consent to them to create militaries, in large part to satisfy our desire for safety, one of our most primary drives. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, safety needs are second only to physiological needs – water, food, shelter, etc.

Thanks.

 

Social interactions will be the fundamental reason; and I suppose that's what my concern is - the beginning of the social chain of reality that leads to the military and CIA. Obviously militaries and espionage agencies are predicated on life's separation - on people being hostile or being expected to be hostile toward other people - but perhaps one can't identify this story without bias.

 

In my mind, bias is what creates the need for governments and militaries. People can be helpful toward others, but because the same person can't be expected to exhibit the same treatment towards everyone, the inevitable result is resentment.

 

However, that's where I diverge: I feel that because anyone should be intelligent enough to understand life's formula, they're being in any way responsible for creating the need for a government isn't justified.

People know about bias and replication, therefore they should use that knowledge to make reality better (and yet for thousands of years billions and billions of people haven't).

 

Why, after 1,000's of years, have billions of people not used the knowledge of reality to prevent governments and society?



#4 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7947 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 10:37 PM

Social interactions will be the fundamental reason; and I suppose that's what my concern is - the beginning of the social chain of reality that leads to the military and CIA. Obviously militaries and espionage agencies are predicated on life's separation - on people being hostile or being expected to be hostile toward other people - but perhaps one can't identify this story without bias.

I think you’re getting at something more fundamental than theories of government that explain how (borrowing terms from the US Declaration of Independence) government not only derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, how that consent depends on a “social contract” between government and the governed under which the governed agree to behave lawfully in exchange for the government assuring a society “most likely to effect their safety and happiness”, and how the power of that government must include “calling forth the Militia (a term simply meaning citizens able of being soldiers) to execute the Laws” to be able to fulfill this contract.

I think you’re questioning if or why military force is needed to assure safety. So, when you ask

Why, after 1,000's of years, have billions of people not used the knowledge of reality to prevent governments and society?

you’re actually asking why we’ve not been able to satisfy the needs of the People without forming some form of society, be it a family, tribe, or nation.

The answer to this question, I think, can ultimately be found not in moral philosophy, sociology, psychology, or political science, but in evolutionary biology, in particular the principle of natural selection. Populations of animals, including humans, that don’t organize to attack or defend against attacks from other animals don’t survive.

Your question suggests to me that you believe most human behavior is determined mostly by knowledge and reason, but science suggests that most of our behavior, like that of other animals, is determined mostly by our genes.

#5 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 06:49 AM

I think you’re getting at something more fundamental than theories of government that explain how (borrowing terms from the US Declaration of Independence) government not only derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, how that consent depends on a “social contract” between government and the governed under which the governed agree to behave lawfully in exchange for the government assuring a society “most likely to effect their safety and happiness”, and how the power of that government must include “calling forth the Militia (a term simply meaning citizens able of being soldiers) to execute the Laws” to be able to fulfill this contract.

I think you’re questioning if or why military force is needed to assure safety. So, when you ask
you’re actually asking why we’ve not been able to satisfy the needs of the People without forming some form of society, be it a family, tribe, or nation.

The answer to this question, I think, can ultimately be found not in moral philosophy, sociology, psychology, or political science, but in evolutionary biology, in particular the principle of natural selection. Populations of animals, including humans, that don’t organize to attack or defend against attacks from other animals don’t survive.

Your question suggests to me that you believe most human behavior is determined mostly by knowledge and reason, but science suggests that most of our behavior, like that of other animals, is determined mostly by our genes.

Were members of the Nixon administration able to refer to members of the Viet Cong as outer space?