As surely as my fellow tourists were staying in their cars and buses, we, as a people, are distancing ourselves from the realities of war. As we seal ourselves away from war's horrors, we're correspondingly finding it easier to speak of "warfighters" and to boast of having the world's best military.As we catch a glimpse, from the comfort of our living rooms, of a suicide bombing in Iraq or an American outpost attacked, then abandoned, in Afghanistan, are we not like those tourists in buses at Gettysburg, listening to sanitized recordings telling us what to see and think about the (expurgated) reality in front of us? And who dares challenge the "expert" commentary? Who dares turn off the canned talking heads and stare into the face of war?
But if we are to end our militaristic, yet curiously sanitized, "warfighter" moment, if we are ever to return to our citizen-soldier ethos and heritage, this is just what we must do.
After all, it's later than you think. Our military now relies not only on a volunteer (if, at times, "stop-lossed") Army, but increasingly on tens of thousands of hired guns, consultants, interrogators, interpreters, and other paramilitary camp followers. Private, for-profit "security contractors" - companies like Blackwater and Triple Canopy - give a disturbing new meaning to our "warfighter" terminology and the rhetoric that marches in step with it. As even casual students of history will recall, a clear sign of the Roman Empire's decline was its shift from citizen-soldiers motivated by duty to mercenaries motivated by profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But here's the question to ponder: At what price virtuosity? In World War I and World War II, the Germans were the best soldiers because they had trained and fought the most, because their societies were geared, mentally and in most other ways, for war, because they celebrated and valued feats of arms above all other contributions one could make to society and culture.
Being "the best soldiers" meant that senior German leaders - whether the Kaiser, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, that Teutonic titan of World War I, or Hitler - always expected them to prevail. The mentality was: "We're number one. How can we possibly lose unless we quit - or those [fill in your civilian quislings of choice] stab us in the back?"If this mentality sounds increasingly familiar, it's because it's the one we ourselves have internalized in these last years. German warfighters and their leaders knew no limitations until it was too late for them to recover from ceaseless combat, imperial overstretch, and economic collapse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about it: Must our military forever remain "second to none" for you to feel safe? Our national traditions suggest otherwise. In fact, if we no longer had the world's strongest military, perhaps we would be more reluctant to tap its strength - and more hesitant to send our citizen-soldiers into harm's way. And while we're at it, perhaps we'd also learn to boast about a new kind of "warfighter" - not one who fights our wars, but one who fights against them.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Return to the Real World
William Astore, a retired Lieutenant Colonel, has some interesting words to say about our professional army. He advocates a return to the citizen-soldier, which I interpret as a return to the draft. Herewith some excerpts (emphases mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Returning to an enforced military won't prevent wars; neither will it curtail the Blackwaters and Halliburtons. Greed will always find a way, if allowed to. Civilization needs to move beyond militarism if it is to survive. That requires a change of attitude beyond the flag-flying, nationalistic, competitive ideals presently touted in this country and fostered as 'normal' human behavior. It isn't. It's a throwback to the medieval days when kings fought each other over lands and titles.
It's time this world developed an international police force capable of intervening in disputes between nations and stamping on dictators who create mayhem. And when I state 'international', I don't mean American. Before that can happen, the US has to stop pretending it runs the world, and instead become an integral part, rather than the militaristic world dictator that is its present function.
After all, we now have an effective international court at The Hague, presently to try the war criminal Karadzic. It makes sense to have a police force capable of bringing these people to justice, or preferably stopping them before they can carry out their heinous crimes. Perhaps the first positive step would be for America to recognize the ICC, though it's not likely to happen, given it wasn't an American idea, and it's not situated in Washington.
Post a Comment