@Pangloss:
"Whether or not the coalition against IS takes up a dollar or two hundred billion of the military budget, his point is that Western foreign policy as realised through the military is antagonistic and may cause a direct loss of tier-1 freedom when the antagonised groups respond."

My response did not dispute that and was not intended to dispute that. But he intended to make a general point about the military, not just a very specific point about military actions w.r.t. ISIS. My point is that his generalization is unsupported. If you have the requisite support, feel free to offer it.

@Lethologica, you said: "@orothaic:
"So the phrase 'protects American freedom' actually translates as, 'protects the American economic interests' - which may seem fine."

No. I gave an example where those two points align; I didn't state that they were equivalent. Of course, it's only in the depths of theory that anyone can even pretend freedom isn't tied to economic security--and for that it doesn't matter if the economy being secured is capitalist or not, your pointless non sequitur aside. (By the way, said non sequitur did not constitute a refutation of the example, so when you ask for examples, I must ask you to reonsider the ones I've already provided.) "

Yes, well you are wrong; they are equivalent. One of the things western military policy focuses on is economic security. Very little else is important. Saudi Arabi could stop producing oil tomorrow, and the world would not end (lets say due to civil unrest). The price of oil would increase. The US would continue to expand production in the Alberta oil sands (despite local objections and sacrfice of their lands) More frakking would increase production aswell (despite the local objections, people would be over-ruled/ignored where possible) This trend to increase production has only stalled because of the recent drop in oil prices ( you can see the drop from august 2014, from over 110 dollar per barrel, to under 50. That is the effect of current Saudi oil production: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/crude-oil/5-year/) Germany likewise would continue an energy strategy, which currently invovles a massive increase in subsidies for solar panels. Russia would be more stable, as oil prices would balance their budget - i'm not sure what they will do in the current crisis.

Regardless, supporting the house of Saud is problematic. And US policy doesn't value the freedom of the people there. I would argue that whenever the freedom of people conflicts with economic security, the economy comes first. And further, the economy doesn't protect everyone equally; It protects the rich (and their investments) first. Hence my comments about local people being ignored in frakking and tar sand exploitation - that's not the militaries doing, but it is happening.

(Germany is more socialist in this sense, because they are allowing average citizens to install their own solar power. But still protects the wealthy and their investments more than the poor who can't afford a house in the first place; you could describe it as a mixed socialist-capitalist economy)

The problem i have with the alliance with Saudi Arabia goes beyond how the Saudis treat their own people; it also relates to their support for Islamic extremists. The fact remains that the Saudis see it in their interest to spread Sunni Islam and be seen as a becon for protection of their religion (just like Iran and Shia Islam) - this has goes hand in hand with the Sunni movement of Wahhabism, which is using assymetric warfare - what you would call terrorism - to spread their religion.

This is radical Islam and the (fewer than 5 million) Wahhabis have had an alliance with the House of Saud since 1744. Oil income in the 70s has massively increased their influence, with Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the most recent splinter group ISIS/Daesh (who don't follow any form of Islam, but were a part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq before disagreeeing and breaking off)

And the Saudis have every reason to want Assad gone, he is a ally of Iran, and Iran just picked up Iraq as a major ally - due in part to the democracy which America brought to Iraq - (they voted for Shia leaders).

This is all well known to th US military leadership and intelligence community. But there is no re-considering the alliance with Saudi Arabia.

--
That is just one example of US foreign policy being designed to sure up the economic system at expense of American freedom, at the expense of the principles which America claims to uphold. At the expense of people world wide hating America (not Americans, but this is sometimes this distinction is not recognised) The most recent relevant example i can think of is the Boston bombings - where "Dzhokhar said he and his brother wanted to defend Islam from the U.S., which conducted the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan, in the view of the brothers, against Muslims."

In a globalised world security becomes a very different game from the 1900s. And again the US military and intelligence community knows this. They have not changed policy, there is no 'Change' which Obama promised. Though he has massively changed gears with respect to negotiations with Iran, and thawing of relations with Cuba. So some (re)consideraiton of these issues has been made.

--
@Amwidkle
The general point is, militaries are designed for waging war. And this can make your country less secure, thus inhibiting freedom.

If i truely beleive that Ireland doesn't engage in this kind of militarism, then I can claim militaries have a place. However, the only reason Ireland's military doesn't act like other militaries, is that we're not strong enough to. We can't act like Imperial powers, with aggressive/antagonistic foreign policy because we don't have enough force to hold our own. (we could, for example, join NATO, but that would merely make us complicite with Imperialistic policies of the large NATO countries)

"I suppose you could argue that the military could refuse to carry out such a mission."

Yes, you could hold individuals responcible for their actions. But as the Milgram experiment (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) shows 'I was just following orders' is a valid excuse for people not trained to think about their actions and evaluate the moral principle behind each one.

For obvious reasons, militaries don't want to train their soldiers to behave this way, for one thing, indecision on the battlefield could get them killed.

"Case in point: Political leaders order the military to bomb a hospital = Political leaders at fault. Alternatively, the military (through negligence) bombs a hospital = military at fault."

You seem to be making a weird dicothomy here. As if there is only a one-way interaction between the political leaders and the military leaders.

The military leaders don't just follow a plan of their own design with goals set by the political leaders. The military leaders are asked what is reasonable, and then put toget a proposal (or a few) which the political leaders then choose between. So there is some two-way commnication of ideas to decide what the military should do.

How did taking the path of non-violence/appeasment work out for the Europeans and Americans with regards to the Musselman pirates of the Barbary States?

Did paying ransoms end the attacks on their merchant ships, or were the Euros and Americans essentially funding the pirates because as Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's Ambassodor to Great Britain said to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Considering that was the way the Muslims world introduced itself to the US, is it really that shocking why some would view Muslim society as one that can not be left to their own devices?

Before answering that, remember that there were two Barbary Wars because the Muslim pirates took advantage of the War of 1812 and went right back to attacking US merchant ships.

"The military leaders don't just follow a plan of their own design with goals set by the political leaders. The military leaders are asked what is reasonable, and then put to get a proposal (or a few) which the political leaders then choose between. So there is some two-way communication of ideas to decide what the military should do."

Agreed. Of course the President consults with his military advisers, indeed surrounds himself with them by placing them in his administration. It would be highly unusual, probably even reckless, if the President didn't consult with military advisers. But in a country like the U.S. with civilian control of the army, the buck ultimately stops with our elected political leaders, especially the President. The President weighs his options and makes the call. That is the essence of the President's Art. II Commander-in-Chief power.

The most important wartime decision of all, which is whether to engage in hostilities or not. Although Congress's Art. I "Declare War" power has fallen obsolete, the congressional use of Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) serves a similar purpose. For example, there is a hot debate roiling right now between the Obama Administration and Congress about whether a new AUMF should be issued for Syria and what the substantive provisions of this AUMF should be. So far, it seems that Obama has been relying on the 2001 AUMF issued in response to the 9/11 attacks, which one could argue is textually broad enough to allow for bombing ISIS in Syria, but it isn't exactly ideal.

The problem I have with your citation of the infamous Milgram Experiment is that this analogy assumes that the role of the U.S. military is penological (against whom?) and that U.S. servicemen are routinely asked to carry out cruel and pointless punishment. Unless you can provide evidence that the U.S. military is as fundamentally nihilistic as the conditions of the Milgram experiment, I'm not swallowing your suggestion that soldiers have a presumptive moral imperative to avoid doing their duties.

"Considering that was the way the Muslims world introduced itself to the US"

This is a very ignorant statement. America's introduction to Muslims came from the millions of Muslims who were imported into this country as slaves and forcibly converted to Christianity.

If pirates should be taken as experts on "true" Islam, then it would only be fair to also describe the pastors who defended the enslavement of (in many cases) Muslim Africans on religious grounds as the exemplars of 'true Christianity'. Considering the Christian world's unending exploitation of the labor of non-Western nations and peoples for the last five hundred years, this seems a far more justifiable compositional fallacy than what you have proposed.

The quote came from Tripoli's Ambassador to Great Britain. He represented states of the Ottoman Empire in foreign lands.

"The quote came from Tripoli's Ambassador to Great Britain. He represented states of the Ottoman Empire in foreign lands."

No, he didn't. Tripoli and the rest of the Maghreb slipped away from the power of the Ottomans in the 17th century.

Slavery is a respected islamic tradition and is still practiced in many forms. Christian pastors did not introduce slavery to muslims. Jesus Christ, man.

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1786, paraphrasing Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman

Some points to remember:
1) Religion is a belief system
2) Religion is not race
3) Some belief systems (like National Socialism, Charlie Mansonism, etc.) promote bad and evil behavior.
4) We can and should criticize belief systems that promote violence and subjugation.
5) People can, and sometimes should, change their beliefs, whether or not you want to call those beliefs "religion."

Anyway, asking "did soldiers really die for my freedom" is a silly forced choice questions which is itself fallacious. When John Nobody died face down in the mud, killed by a Redcoat in the Revolutionary War, it is pretty hard to determine the long term impacts of his going to war and his subsequent death. There are too many variables to come to a conclusive answer. Although, it is probably fair to make some broad analysis of the relative impacts of various wars and combat actions over the years. I doubt the two barbary wars had any direct impact on my "freedom", but you never know.