A Quote by Crispin Blunt
In truth the importance of U.K. airstrikes and the U.K.'s eight additional planes is more political than military. It is in honesty a micro military issue. There is no great military necessity for the U.K. to be involved since planes are queuing up from a wide range of countries over the skies of Syria.
Related Quotes
It is not possible . . . to concentrate enough military planes with military loads over a modern city to destroy that city.
I think I have great knowledge of - for military, and I think I have better vision for Syria than a lot of the so-called great military geniuses that are saying how to fight the war with Syria. In my opinion, they're doing just the opposite. Are we going to start World War III over Syria? Are we going to be there for the next 40 years?
In recent years the military has gradually been eased out of political life in Turkey. The military budget is now subject to much more parliamentary scrutiny than before. The National Security Council, through which the military used to exercise influence over the government is now a purely consultative body. But Turkish society still sees the military as the guarantor of law and order. The army is trusted, held in high regard - though not by dissident liberals. When things go wrong, people expect the military to intervene, as they've intervened over and over again in Turkish history.
I'm rebuilding the military. We have great people. We have tremendous borders. I mention the F-35 because if I can save $725 million — look at that, that's a massive amount of money. And I'll save more as we make more planes. If I can save that on a small number of planes — Gen. Jim Mattis said, “I've never seen anything like this,” because he had to sign the ultimate. He had to sign the ultimate, you know. He said, “I've never seen anything like this before, as long as I've been in the military.” You know, that kind of cutting.
More than a decade and half after 9/11, U.S. military actions in countries such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and several other Muslim nations are governed by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was passed in the days immediately after 9/11.
Let me be clear: I'm a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service - and that's preposterous.
Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.
The United States is a violent military state. It's been involved in military action all over the place.
What is and isn't justified by military necessity is, naturally, open to interpretation. One of the key concepts, though, is the law of proportionality. A military attack that results in civilian casualties - 'collateral damage' - is acceptable as long as the military benefits outweigh the price that is paid by humanity.
In Syria, a progressive foreign policy would have shown military restraint while pumping up our ability to gain political leverage over Syria's benefactors and providing humanitarian funding to make sure that anybody that wanted to leave Syria could.
Even military ministers have no more than a certain amount of control. It is customary that they have the right and the power to participate, from a political and military point of view, in the planning of actual operations
Even military ministers have no more than a certain amount of control. It is customary that they have the right and the power to participate, from a political and military point of view, in the planning of actual operations.
I grew up in a military family, and there's something about that military-style uniform, all cleaned up, a brutal control effort the military necessarily breeds.
United States has comparative advantage in military force. It tends to react to anything at first with military force, that's what it's good at. And I think they overdid it. There was more military force than was necessary.
Donald Trump in Philadelphia, and he's delivering a very substantive speech on military preparedness, the status of the current military. He detailed the deterioration of the U.S. military in the past eight years and explained how he's going to rebuild it and why we need to, and it's a very tough audience. It's an expressly military audience, and they are of course listening for any sign that he's not really genuine here. I think, knocking this out of the park as far as that audience is concerned.
The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism.
Related Authors
Alfred Lord Tennyson Quotes
British
Poet
Benjamin Disraeli Quotes
British
Celebrity
Bertrand Russell Quotes
British
Celebrity
C. S. Lewis Quotes
British
Writer
Charles Spurgeon Quotes
British
Priest
George Eliot Quotes
British
Novelist
George Herbert Quotes
British
Poet
George Orwell Quotes
British
Novelist
Jane Austen Quotes
British
Novelist
Jeanette Winterson Quotes
British
Writer
Lord Byron Quotes
British
Poet
Neil Gaiman Quotes
British
Author
Richard Branson Quotes
British
Businessman
Virginia Woolf Quotes
British
Author
W. Somerset Maugham Quotes
British
Novelist
Winston Churchill Quotes
British
Statesman