Not Your Father's Army
By Chuck Baldwin
Most of us Americans have a deep and abiding respect and admiration for our
country's fighting men who have served--and are serving--within the US Armed
Forces. We appreciate their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for
the preservation of our nation's liberty and independence. We honor their
sacrifice. Indeed, many of us share that sacrifice with the deaths,
dismemberments, and paralysis of our most cherished loved ones who were
killed or injured in the line of duty.
It is time, however, that we awaken to the reality of what our military is
becoming and where it is heading. Suffice it to say, this is not your
On December 8, 1941, my father, Ed Baldwin--along with his two brothers, Bud
and Gene--marched down to a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to
enlist. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the day before, and no branch
of service had to beg people to enlist that day. Bud joined the Navy. Gene
joined the Marines. When government officials saw Dad's resumé, they
selected him to help construct the atomic bomb. All three brothers served
their country with distinction throughout the war.
But what all of us need to realize is, World War II was the last
constitutionally fought war in which America has been engaged. The United
Nations was created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our military
forces have increasingly become the "peacekeeping" arm of that evil
Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in South Korea, South
Vietnam (including Laos and Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait),
Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan--all for the benefit of the United
Nations. Add to these major wars lesser conflicts (except to those Americans
killed or wounded in them) such as Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Congo
(Zaire), Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Panama,
Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone,
Kenya, Tanzania, and Somalia. And this does not take into account the
countless CIA-sponsored Black Ops missions that have taken place all over
Yes, American forces have been used to both put people in power and take
people out of power all over the world. And as often as not, the people we
put in power were counted among the "bad guys," while the people we removed
from power were "good guys." Remember, our own CIA was the organization most
responsible for the rise to power of Osama Bin Laden. And it was the US
government that surreptitiously set up the murder of Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who
was one of the best friends the United States had overseas. Plus, does
anyone remember how the US treated our friend, the Shah of Iran? Yes, some
of us are old enough to remember when Iran was one of the best friends we
had in that region of the world.
But mind you, not one single war in which American forces have been engaged
since WWII has been constitutionally fought. Not one!
Ever since the United Nations was created, its interests have dominated the
usage of US forces. In fact, our military today is quickly morphing into the
tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World Order. To those with
eyes to see, the evidence is everywhere. It's not even being hidden anymore.
Have you seen that new US Navy television commercial? It boldly proclaims,
"The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For Good." (Emphasis added.)
This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order has changed (and is
changing) our US military right before our eyes. It has taken the greatest
and proudest independent fighting force in the world--one created to defend
the people and property of the United States--and turned it into a global
military policeman for the evil Machiavellians at the UN.
In order to convert the US military into a true "Global Force," several
changes are being forced upon our fighting men.
First, more and more women are entering the US military.
Currently, women comprise about 20% of military personnel. And for the first
time in US history, women are actively engaged in combat units in the
current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive integration of women in
combat may serve the interests of political correctness, but it does not
serve the interests of combat effectiveness. Neither does it serve the
interests of family and child rearing. And I don't care how old fashioned
Wives and mothers are the backbone of family nurturing. To willingly take
mothers away from their children--and subject both mother and child to the
separation and suffering that military life demands--is both unnatural and
And there is another stark reality that few people want to discuss: the fact
that 30% of all women in the US military are raped. Yes, you read it right:
According to NPR, "In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30
percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who
were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent
of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a
1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90
percent had been sexually harassed."
See the report at:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570
Government and military brass know that the introduction of women into the
military environment (especially the combat environment) is reaping problems
of epidemic proportions, but they are deliberately ignoring and even
covering them up.
For example, does anyone recall the name Jamie Leigh Jones? According to ABC
News, "A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR
coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering
up the incident.
"Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at
a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping
container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical
treatment, she'd be out of a job."
See the report at:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1
And this story leads into another phenomenon being created within this New
World Order army: the way our government and military are increasing their
use of "private" or "independent" contractors. In the past, these people
were always known simply as mercenaries. Call them what you will,
mercenaries are now a major component of the way our government wages war.
According to Global Research, "The growing use of private armies not only
subjects target populations to savage warfare but makes it easier for the
White House to subvert domestic public opinion and wage wars.
"Americans are less inclined to oppose a war that is being fought by hired
foreign mercenaries, even when their own tax dollars are being squandered to
"'The increasing use of contractors, private forces, or, as some would say,
"mercenaries," makes wars easier to begin and to fight--it just takes money
and not the citizenry,' said Michael Ratner, of New York's Center for
Constitutional Rights. 'To the extent a population is called upon to go to
war, there is resistance, a necessary resistance to prevent wars of
self-aggrandizement, foolish wars, and, in the case of the United States,
hegemonic imperialist wars.'"
See the report at:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14972
Remember, at any given moment, there might be as many--if not
more--mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as there are US military
forces. For example, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in early
2008, the number of mercenaries fighting in Iraq numbered more than 190,000.
Remember, in addition to the benefit of not drafting US citizens to fight
these perpetual wars (and thus avoid incurring the wrath and resistance of
the American public), mercenaries enjoy the luxury of not having to comply
with the military rules of engagement. And the stories of atrocities
committed by US-employed mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan are too
numerous to list.
In addition to the Jamie Jones case mentioned above, consider the case where
Blackwater (now called Xe) mercenaries mowed down 17 Iraqi citizens in an
unprovoked attack. And, of course, no one at Blackwater was held accountable
for these murders. Reports of abuse, cruelty, and savagery by mercenaries in
Iraq are commonplace. According to the Global Research report, "Many
soldiers of fortune on private payrolls previously served dictators in South
Africa, Chile, and elsewhere."
The Washington Post quotes Brigadier General Karl Horst, an advisor to the
U.S. Joint Force Command as saying, "These guys [mercenaries] run loose in
this country [Iraq] and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so
you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force . . . They shoot
people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over
And you wonder why the United States is viewed so negatively around the
Granted, there is a place and proper use for mercenaries. Fred E. Foldvary,
Senior Editor of The Progress Report, rightly observes, "One alternative to
U.S. military action against terrorists who have attacked the U.S. and other
countries, and are threatening further attacks, is to enact Letters of
Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S.
Constitution authorizes Congress to 'grant letters of Marque and Reprisal
and make rules concerning captures on land and water.' A 'reprisal' means an
action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of
property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could
include forces used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances.
A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further
harm and cannot be captured.
"'Marque' is related to 'marching' and means crossing or marching across a
border in order to do a reprisal. So a letter of Marque and Reprisal would
authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct
reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.
"Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by
international law, which is why it was able to be included in the
Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of
one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by
the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who
were in Afghanistan."
See Foldvary's column at:http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm
And that is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul attempted to do. He proposed
H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize
the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. See Dr. Paul's Press
However, neither the Congress nor the White House--Democrat or
Republican--has any intention of following the Constitution; therefore,
Letters of Marque and Reprisal were never authorized. As a result, no
authority has been granted to these mercenaries to wage war on behalf of
anyone, especially not the people of the United States.
But what unauthorized mercenaries do accomplish is to fulfill the demands of
internationalists and globalists to use unaccountable and uncontrolled (at
least by normal military protocols) private armies for their own personal
and nefarious purposes.
The next step for our politically correct "Global Force" is the
authorization for homosexuals to serve openly in the US military. This has
long been the goal of globalists, and it is now about to happen.
It was globalist President Bill Clinton who introduced the current "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the US armed
forces--but not openly. Of course, this was a major departure from US
military history. From George Washington's Continental army until the
Clinton administration, homosexuality was deemed "incompatible" with
military service. And now globalist Barack Obama is leading Congress to
change the policy even further by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in
the US military.
However, please consider this: if our governmental and military leaders
would cover up the raping of American servicewomen by servicemen, don't you
know that they will cover up the raping of American servicemen by homosexual
servicemen? Mark this down: mixing sex (heterosexual or homosexual) and
military service is a recipe for disaster. And the potential damage
inflicted upon military units (especially combat units) is exacerbated
exponentially by the introduction of large numbers of homosexuals and women
into those units. (This is the universal sentiment of virtually every active
duty or retired serviceman I have ever spoken with.) But it does fit
perfectly into the plans of the New World Order architects, who want to use
the US military as much for the advancement of their politically correct
agenda as they do for any actual military purpose.
Plus, dare I mention how that many violent gangs in North America are
encouraging their members to join the US military in order to learn tactics
and skills, which enable them to more effectively inflict their criminality
upon the American people? Well, it's true. And our military brass knows it's
true, and yet they still allow these thugs to enter our military. Hispanic
gang members, especially, are entering the US military in droves.
According to a report in The American Conservative magazine, "[R]ecent
figures indicate that gang membership in the Armed Forces significantly
surpasses civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to 2 percent of
the military are gang members, compared to 0.02 percent of the general
See the report at:http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/may/05/0012/
No, ladies and gentlemen, it is not your father's army. And, sadly, while
many of our fine military leaders (not to mention many of our active duty
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of this taking place, they
are practically powerless to stop it, because political correctness and
globalism run rampant in Washington, D.C., including at the Pentagon.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin