Australia's Air Force recently published a revised version of their national airpower doctrine. That's a big deal for Australia, whose geographic position ensures that its air force is the most critical branch of its military. There's a fair bit of controversy surrounding this new doctrine, largely because their Department of Defence seems intent on crafting the doctrine and making multi-billion weapon buys without actually paying attention to trends in their region and the weapons their future air force may face.
Which is interesting, but not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is this excerpt from Chapter 3 [PDF format] of the Royal Australian Air Force's official doctrine documents. The sidebar is titled "War As Spectator Sport?"
"Dan Maraniss of the Washington Post had gone to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, where he interviewed seven young men, each either 20 or 21, about the same age as the young men ready to fight in the Gulf. In this southern citadel of traditional patriotism, five of the seven supported the war, but none was willing to fight in it. 'This might sound selfish, but I think it would be a shame to put America's best young minds on the front line', said one young man. Maraniss's piece was unusually telling: it was as if war had turned into a spectator sport, with most American homes immunised from the reality of it all."
The cite is to from p. 154 of David Halberstam's book War in a Time of Peace. Published in 2001. I presume he was talking about Clinton's 1998 "Desert Fox" clash with Saddam Hussein.
Personally, the bit about what percentage supported Clinton is irrelevant to me, and to the issue of willingness to serve as well. They're citizens, and their opinions are supposed to feed into foreign policy. Which includes war and peace, as part of their civic reponsibilities. What strikes me as very relevant, and problematic, is this line:
"This might sound selfish, but I think it would be a shame to put America's best young minds on the front line."
I'd like to think we're beyond that, and maybe we could have been, but part of me says "no, we're not." A 2007 document from a foreign government wouldn't be quoting it, either, unless they believed it remained relevant to our times. We've had some debates here on Winds about the idea of general sacrifice in this war, and some have ridiculed it - but look closely at that passage. When people talk about sacrifice, or the history of us vs. the history of me, I submit that under it all is the same thing in me that read this and recoiled.
War is upon us, and will continue regardless of our views on the matter. It is not, and must not be allowed to become or to remain, a spectator sport. It will be up to successful leaders, and political parties, and militaries, and the rest of us, too here in the modern age - to find ways of bringing the populace at large into its necessities as something more than voting spectators. With some notable exceptions (guys like Michael Yon, Michael Totten & Bill Roggio; independent citizen-led efforts to make a difference and help our troops), our failure to date has been noticeable; indeed, it's one of the larger failings of this stage in the conflict.
Before the next stage kicks in, it would be a damn good idea to have a better answer. Thoughts?
In a modern market economy, ever-increasing complexity inevitably spawns ever-narrower specialization. War won't stop being a spectator sport for the vast majority of the population unless the draft is brought back, or some form of involuntary national service.
President Bush after 9/11: "Go shopping more." Insanity or reality? Well, both.
Unfortunately the next stage will likely involve WMD or a dirty bomb. I do not think that the American public will awaken short of that. Even during WW-II, our last total war, maintaining public support required relentless propaganda from Hollywood, mass media, rallies and marches. By 1945 people were war weary even in the US. Oddly enough Germany and Japan had less difficulties maintaining civilian morale until the bitter end because the populations were directly affected by Allied bombing campaign. That seemed to have brought the stakes of defeat home to the average Japanese or German civilian in a way that War Bond Rallies could not in the US.
My prediction? If our enemies are intelligent they will carefully nibble at the margins until we retreat into isolationism and then build strength and alliances (Venezuela, Cuba, Shiite Southern Iraq, Waziristan). If stupid they will try another 9/11 on a larger scale. Google "three conjectures" and "belmont club" together sometime for a far more eloquent take on possible futures.
Respectfully submitted
IE
The fundamental reason there is no "general sacrifice" is that we are NOT in a total war. Indeed, our current wars required almost no mobilization of civilian resources. (I'm excluding private military contractors.) That fact shows just how powerful the US really is, and it shows why many homeland civilians can be so isolated from the effects of war.
In some sense, this is a form of war strategy. The Israelis call it the "Doctrine of Transference" whereby the war is instantly transferred to the other country's territory, so they suffer the ravages of war not us. Insofar as it is an intended strategy, it has worked well.
I agree with IE. Our enemies will continue to "nibble at the margins until we retreat into isolationism and then build strength and alliances." However, this is an accurate description of Europe's grand strategy, and shows a convergence of European and Islamist political aims (not methods).
I think many in the US are in denial: we are in a very, very, Cold War with Europe. But it's a Cold War nonetheless. Perhaps we should discuss an even more general "sacrifice." The US seems to be fighting a global war against a huge threat to the West --- and the US fights almost alone. Where's the "general sacrifice?"
Al-Qaida didn't outfight us on 9/11. They outwitted us. They haven't outfought us in the various wars we are now fighting abroad. They've simply adapted to maximize what they have against our inability to imagine and conduct an effective strategy.
Sacrifice isn't the answer because lack of it isn't the problem.
"Al-Qaida didn't outfight us on 9/11. They outwitted us...". Maybe. Maybe not. I mean it doesn't take much wit to hyjack a few airplanes on the same morning and fly them into buildings. Actually, it is a remarkably simple plan. Nor does it take much much wit to wire an IED or strap on a suicide explosive vest and walk into a crowded area in which to detonate one's self.
What Al-Qaida did, and continues to do, is out will us. All of the above take will to execute. It requires a strong will among the populace to be able to recruit new personnel, year after year, to perform these sorts of missions.
Too many Americans are soft spoiled lazy self-centered cowards. They beat the drums of war and loudly wave the flag as the troops march by, but quietly think up excuses as to why they should not be among the ranks.
The spouses of troops are so weak that they file for divorce because they can't handle deployment schedules.....and morale crumbles....
Our politicians are too spineless to implement a war tax to pay for the extra cost of prosecuting the war and taking care of the veterans....maybe the voters would be upset of they had to buy into the war they supported instead of enjoying that second or third plasma screen TV........
We will not prevail in the long run because we are lacking will; and the enemy knows this.
Dan Maraniss went to Vanderbilt, the "Harvard of the South." Rich folks, interested in becoming richer. Not much interest in fighting, unless you're talking about boardroom battles.
I sincerely doubt that the average Vandy student knows a soldier, but their maid probably does.
Avedis (#5),
What I meant by outwit is that the enemy took advantage of vulnerabilities that we should not have taken for granted. But I'll concede that another word would be better.
On the question of will, you need to compare fighters with fighters and civilians with civilians. Our troops are certainly not inferior to al-Qaida in terms of willpower. On the civilian side, AQ had and continues to have a critical mass of support around the world and the willpower to persevere. But after 9/11, civilian America had the will to defeat the people who had attacked us and to sacrifice if necessary to do so. It wasn't US public opinion that defined civilian duty as the imperative to go shopping. Public opinion didn't tremble at the first sign of casualties either, if support for the war was the issue that caused a majority of Americans to reelect President Bush in 2004. And if public opinion was really so antiwar today, Congress wouldn't be tied in knots over how to word a nonbinding antiwar resolution.
But there is a problem. It is the fact that infinite willpower on our side simply won't amount to much if our side keeps doing the same ineffective things year after year after year. An intelligent strategy cannot succeed without the will to see it through, but if physical force and willpower are everything and intelligent strategy and effective leadership are nothing, we are sure to fail.
InlandEmpire:
The logic in that essay seems to be pretty well impeccable, given that the other side doesn't really care whether any individual lives or dies - after all, each one who dies will get his 72 virgins. (What do the women and kids get?)
Follow the logic further, though. If you believe the gist of that essay, then the optimum solution is to obliterate the opposition now, without warning, before 1E6 or so Westerners pay the price of our indecisiveness.
But our leaders haven't read Machiavelli, and the human-rights "all points of view are equal" brigade have hamstrung us, and so a million or so, probably American, will have to die before the Islamic world is turned into lethal smoke and glowing glass. And when it does happen, the libs will be the loudest voice baying for blood.
Who knows? Maybe the 15 UK soldiers and sailors will be World War IV's Duke Ferdinand.
D.B #7 ".....But after 9/11, civilian America had the will to defeat the people who had attacked us and to sacrifice if necessary to do so..........................."
Agreed with re; our troops, but not so sure re; the above.
I was (and remain) all for our efforts in Afghanistan (though was opposed to Iraq from even before the invasion). However, I don't think our politicians saw - or currently see - things as you do. If they did, we would have gone into Afghanistan much stronger. We would have had sufficient boots to have stopped Bin Ladden as he made his get away. We would have had sufficient troops to have killed just about every last Taliban and A.Q. fighter in the country. There was a lack of will by political leadership because they believed the American people couldn't handle the ramifications of full commitment.
Though I firmly believe we should have never entered Iraq, I will conceed that there is a chance that had we gone in much much stronger we may have been able to secure a peace. Again, there was a lack of will on the part of the civilian leadership and a belief on their part that the population at large also lacked will.
The will of the fighters is only part of the picture. It is the will of the entire societal infrastructure that ultimately makes the difference and it is in that regard that A.Q. and insurgents in general have the edge that will allow them to prevail in the long run. In Vietnam our troops fought as bravely as in any other war the US has fought. Certainly they gave back everything the communists dished out (and then some). It wasn't the troops' courage or committment that was lacking, yet the US still retreat as losers.
:.....then the optimum solution is to obliterate the opposition now..... the Islamic world is turned into lethal smoke and glowing glass......"
Wow Fletcher, that's some really twisted sh*t. Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.
Or just how do you propose to identify and isolate the terrorists and insurgents from the women and children and assorted friendlies? Or is America now to be all about genocidal paranoia?
Are you so afraid that you would throw away all that we stand for? Or are you just a blood thirsty bigot?
Either way, your way of thinking is as offensive as it is stupid.
To: Fletcher Christian
Thanks for the props. I would like to cite denbeste.nu and belmont club as two authors who guided my thinking in these matters. There are ethical issues with preemptive war; we are not at that point. I, and many others, think that if (or when) we lose a city things will change. Strong agreement with you that the same people who chant "US out of Vietnam.. I mean Iraq!!!" will the be same unwashed masses blubbering on about the massive failure of our Gov't to protect them. As if US Gov't is not already doing everything it can DESPITE active opposition from ACLU, moveon.org and assorted activists.
To: Avedis
Your emotional reaction to a simple essay shows that under certain conditions people do not reason but react. If or when a US city suffers some sort of WMD attack many many millions of your fellow citizens will be baying for blood. Ample historical examples exist: Anti German sentiment after the declaration of WWI and the internment of Japanese civilians after Pearl Harbor. You may argue that we have evolved as a society; I would contend that we have not yet suffered a sufficient injury.
Again, google "belmont club" "three conjectures" then reflect a bit.
RAND corp did a very interesting analysis of the effets of a small terrorist-size nuke in San Pedro harbor (LA CA):
http://www.trb.org/safety/RAND-Aug-2006.pdf
Winds of change commentary:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008944.php
Den Beste comments on terrorist nukes (far more eloquent than me):
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/11/Threeconjectures.shtml
Informed comments welcomed.
IE
To Avedis:
Just the sort of hysterical garbage I expected from someone. What part of "follow the logic" didn't you understand?
To InlandEmpire:
It is entirely possible that we aren't yet at that point. But we could be very quickly; see the post above the one we are commenting on, and reflect on the consequences of a coup in Pakistan backed by the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
There are also a couple of other points to make - one is that the real horrors are still waiting in the wings. If they could get hold of it, imagine what Al Qaeda could and would do with a sample of gray goo. This possibility is maybe 20 years off.
There is actually another way out, one that will take hard work, effort and sacrifice (and not a few companies going bust) to achieve. This is to cut the flow of money to the jihadis at its source, by making oil irrelevant; by starting a Manhattan Project-scale programme to find alternative energy sources. Included; intrinsically safe (pebble-bed?) fission, ocean thermal, wave power, electrostatic-confinement fusion a la Bussard, and the one with the biggest payoff in the long term - SPS.
Then expel all Muslims from civilisation, stop buying their oil, seal off the borders and let them find out whether oil and sand are edible.
And before we even start any of that, stop making concessions to their barbaric "religion" inside our own countries. Islam is no more morally acceptable than was the religion of the Aztecs.
I just thought of something else. Something that would cost nothing and be a useful symbol.
Replace the Star-Spangled Banner as the American national anthem - with the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Two hundred odd years later, isn't it time to stop going on about the Revolutionary War?
Interesting post, and even more interesting comments. Maybe the quote does come from 1998 or whenever--it seems to predate both the Afghan and the Iraq incursions. But it's difficult to believe that anyone would get a different response today at Vanderbilt, or Dartmouth, ot most universities, for that matter. Most bloggers supporting these wars would reply similarly--and, in fact, have done just that. And, while I have to admit that I don't accept the assumption that we are engaged in a war of civilizations that often runs through this site, I am a veteran (a different useless war), and continue to have considerable respect for the people that are actually consigned to do the fighting for the rest of us. What strikes me about these discussions, and I come across them from time to time on various websites, is that no one really seems willing to take on the next step--bringing back the draft. evariste mentioned it, and then no one else picked it up. Why is that?
Oh, another thing--the Cold War with Europe idea. Because we in Europe (in my case, the UK) don't accept the notion that the US has undertaken some manly struggle against the forces of darkness on its own? Really.
And wasn't it the War of 1812?
wufnik:
Some people here appear to forget that the small island known as the UK held off the forces of one of the four worst tyrannies ever known - pretty well by itself, and for two years, before another one of those four lit a fire under the USA's collective arse and they entered the war.
Yes, the Americans gave us some of their obsolete (but still essential) junk - but they took just about all our overseas possessions in payment.
There were a few (really, very few) brave and honourable Americans who saw their duty and fought on our side - a small minority of the Few that was already a microscopic fraction of the civilised West.
There were more of the Few than there were of the Spartans at Thermopylae - but not really very many more. I think, and hope, that they will be remembered as long - including those ten (yes, just ten - I just checked) American heroes who joined us.
In case you didn't guess, I am a Brit too.
Fletcher--I'm not, I'm just a Yank who's lived here for nine years. I do that because I like the weather and the food. After that stops conversation, I go on about the culture etc.
I take your point about that 39-41 period. That was one of the ugliest periods in US history, I think--the categorical refusal to engage with the direction the world was taking. (Which I don't think is a model for what's happening now, btw--probably where I differ from most folks on this site). I remain forever in admiration for Churchill and Roosevelt, especially the latter, for how the two of them managed to keep the UK afloat until the US decided to stop being isolationist. (There 's lots of non-admirable stuff about both, of course--but it's outweighed, I think).
Now, about bringing back the draft...
The problem with bringing back the draft is that no modern army needs unfit, ill-educated, resentful grunts to actually fight wars. They would be more trouble than they are worth.
The other idea I have seen is that of some sort of National Service - where everyone from some age to some other (for the sake of argument 18-21) serves the nation, for lower than average but still decent wages, in some other capacity and under quasi-military discipline. Some ideas have been such things as litter patrol, unskilled work in hospitals, park-keeping and so on; the sort of jobs that are not absolutely essential but would make life better for everyone.
The main point of this would be not to get the work done, but instil some sort of discipline (and - yes - physical fitness) in people a large fraction of whom would go on to become troublemakers and a drag on society as a whole - and therefore get the crime rate down.
I suppose that an exemption might be in order for those who are already doing socially worthwhile jobs (doctors, nurses, police, firemen?) or are in training for them - which does not include media studies and degrees in Klingon.
Of course, since 18-year-olds have the vote (which in my opinion should never have happened) this one will never fly.
Sorry, wufnik, for assuming you were British.
I am all for bringing back the draft.
Contrary to what Fletcher thinks, conscripted troops have fought with valor and distinction in every American war from the 1860s through Vietnam.
I think the Fletchers and many of the rightwing bloggers of the world are opposed to the draft because then they might have to actually go do all the killing they're always calling for.
So that would be a plus, sober up these bloodthirsty chicken Hawks.
Another plus is that we would have enough troops to handle multiple wars; something that it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are unable to do today.
Finally, given our new role as the world's police force and as nation builders our armed forces would be able to pull in more diversified talents and abilities that are well suited for accomplishing our modern missions.
Also, I would like to add that I am a veteran and that both of my children are in the service. My son is in the Army. He has earned his Ranger Tab, though Uncle Sam is currently paying for him to go to college. He will be commissione upon graduation and then will owe ten years per contract. My daughter is in the Navy with a medical MOS.
and that being said, I still say Fletcher is a sick hypocritical f**k for all his talk about nuking entire races and/or cutting them off from the necessities of life, nay civilzation itself, and then calling Islam an immoral religion. Jeez, talking about not being able to follow logic......
No offense taken, Fletcher, since apparently I'm part of the Anglosphere anyway, so that makes me ok, or something. Now, if I were French.... Anyway, I do disagree with you on the draft--armies have functioned just fine with one over the years. Plus, it would avoid breaking the army, reserves, and National Guard, which is exactly what's happening now. And, in spite of Vietnam, it could act (in part) to prevent unecessary wars, like the one we seem to be about to have with Iran. Plus the military wouldn't be forced to lower both academic and moral standards to meet enlistment tarrgets, which is what is happening now.
More importantly, it's a great leveller--I don't know anyone who made it through the army in general (except for those who didn't cone back, but that was Vietnam, not the draft) who wasn't better for it, and didn't have more compassion for others as a result. Including an inclination to pause before sending American and British soliers off to vanity wars. And when I look at the twenty and thirty year olds I work with, who are (well, not any more, but certainly were) gung-ho about sending some other poor slob into Iraq--well, a couple of years in the army or something would have made some difference in attitude. I'm just saying. War wouldn't be a spectator sport, or a television show, then. I think that would be a good thing.
I think the draft was and would be unconstitutional. It's involuntary servitude. As far as constraining military action. How could a draft be more constraining than an all volunteer force? Presumably, a draft would allow forcing folks to serve regardless of whether they supported the mission or even the military in general. And as far as giving the elites a dose of military service, yeah I really see that happening... not. the draft was always for the folks without the means to game the system. This will not change for any future politically viable draft.
avedis:
So you think that the armed forces would find me useful, do you? I'm forty-eight years old, have survived two major diseases, am partially paralysed and rely on medication to keep me alive. Show me a military job I could actually do and...
Cut them off from civilisation? Well, roughly 50% of the population in the most fundamentalist areas is cut off from what civilisation now - at least in terms of human rights, education, medical care and the right not to be killed by the family for some imagined slight. But I presume Islamic women don't matter.
The thing is, the Arab world in particular has all the resources it needs - Israel being an example to follow - but they prefer to spend them kiling each other. Well, let them.
"...Israel being an example to follow ...."
Yeah, some example; a bunch of racists fascists. You do know that arab citizens of Israel can't even vote, don't you. You do know that Arabs are second class citizens. right? Some example.
But maybe you like Israel because they are as racist and bigotted toward Arabs as you are.
"....but they prefer to spend them kiling each other..." You mean like (or not like) Europeans and English until very recently in history...you know all those hundred year wars and world wars and wars over this or that ......yeah those Arabs they sure are "inferior".......sheeesh.......what passes for thought process on this blog is pretty questionable.
Well, hey avedia, at least Arab Israelis can drive and walk into Jerusalem, and it's legal to carry the Qu'ran...
A.L.
avedis:
Well, the Arabs are already following the example of Hitler. If you don't believe that, try importing Bibles into Riyadh.
What I actually meant is that the Israelis have turned useless desert into a garden. With the aid of outside money, sure; but how many trillions of dollars of oil money have the Arabs had, and what have they done with it?
Well, let's see. They have enriched a number of Rolls-Royce dealers, nightclubs and gambling establishments, call girls and sellers of fine brandy and whisky in various European capitals and in Monte Carlo. Also, they have enhanced the reserves of numerous Swiss banks. And of course they have financed numerous terrorists, quite a lot of them kaffir (the IRA?) and bought numerous military toys, which they can't be bothered to maintain.
What they haven't done is spend anything at all on their own infrastructure, or on feeding their people, or on making any better the life of the average Arab on the street.
The same certainly applies to the Persians.
Avedis, when a new war is starting you have to ask yourself who is going to gain some big bucks out of it. The entire argumentation for war was changed. We're not fighting for truth, justice or self determination any more. We're just fighting for contracts, oil, and a lot of money.