By Steve Hynd
Be sure to read Andrew Bacevich in the Washinton Post today. He claims, with good reason, that the kind of arrogance General McChrystal and his "Team America" exhibited in that Rolling Stone interview is endemic to the U.S. officer corps and that the American people's overall disengagement from the COIN "long war" is to blame.
The Long War is not America's war. It belongs exclusively to "the troops," lashed to a treadmill that finds soldiers and Marines either serving in a combat zone or preparing to deploy.
To be an American soldier today is to serve a people who find nothing amiss in the prospect of armed conflict without end. Once begun, wars continue, persisting regardless of whether they receive public support. President Obama's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, this nation is not even remotely "at" war. In explaining his decision to change commanders without changing course in Afghanistan, the president offered this rhetorical flourish: "Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths." In fact, when it comes to war, the American people avert their eyes from difficult truths. Largely unaffected by events in Afghanistan and Iraq and preoccupied with problems much closer to home, they have demonstrated a fine ability to tune out war. Soldiers (and their families) are left holding the bag.
Throughout history, circumstances such as these have bred praetorianism, warriors becoming enamored with their moral superiority and impatient with the failings of those they are charged to defend. The smug disdain for high-ranking civilians casually expressed by McChrystal and his chief lieutenants -- along with the conviction that "Team America," as these officers style themselves, was bravely holding out against a sea of stupidity and corruption -- suggests that the officer corps of the United States is not immune to this affliction.
...The responsibility facing the American people is clear. They need to reclaim ownership of their army. They need to give their soldiers respite, by insisting that Washington abandon its de facto policy of perpetual war. Or, alternatively, the United States should become a nation truly "at" war, with all that implies in terms of civic obligation, fiscal policies and domestic priorities. Should the people choose neither course -- and thereby subject their troops to continuing abuse -- the damage to the army and to American democracy will be severe.
Read, as they say, the whole thing.
It sounds odd coming from a former draftee/conscientious objector, but after having served as a draftee I am convinced that a military draft would solve the problem. Hubris is a foregone conclusion with this or any so-called "all volunteer military."
ReplyDeleteChallenging subordinates require better management skills. Draftees among the troops make for better NCO's and commissioned officers. Better "people skills." More solid leadership.
And when a cross-section of the population is involved, body bags get more attention. That's a no-brainer.
I'm still waiting after several years. This endless war crap is getting old.
An old-fashioned attack would do the trick, but we have run out of super-power enemies. And as long as drones, robots and outsourced security do what uniformed soldiers once did the chances of a return to conscription are fading.
Here's an idea: How about a draft to guard our Southern border and fight the drug cartels? I bet that would clarify a lot of minds and wake up the officer corps.
...The responsibility facing the American people is clear. They need to reclaim ownership of their army. They need to give their soldiers respite, by insisting that Washington abandon its de facto policy of perpetual war.
ReplyDeleteAnd how, exactly, are we supposed to do? We have a choice only between the two major parties for our members of Congress every two to six years; and every four years, we hold our noses and vote for either a lying Republican or a lying Democrat for president. For most of us, traveling to Washington to "protest" would be financially impossible. Hell, for many of us, just buying gas to attend a local protest would be a hardship. And when we email or call Congress about an issue, their only response is a canned reply.
Frankly, I'm fed up with being blamed for this sort of thing. I've voted ever since I became eligible, I've paid my taxes, I've kept myself as informed as possible on a wide variety of issues, I've questioned authority - especially the drivel that typically spews from the mass media, and I've done my best to bend the ears of my Congressmen. It isn't my fault that, during my lifetime as a citizen here, the US has been twisted from a representative democracy into a fully-fledged corporatocracy, plutocracy, and/or fascist regime (take your pick - they all apply). And I'm already doing everything I know to do to change that - to damned little effect, unfortunately.
From your last post:
...major industrialized nations called on Kabul to "expand the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces to assume increasing responsibility for security within five years."
As you've previously pointed out several times, the Afghans have neither the money nor the will to do this.
The [Afghan] government must also "combat corruption, address illicit drug production and trafficking, improve human rights, improve provision of basic services and governance and make concrete progress to reinforce the formal justice system."
The Afghan government may pay a little lip-service to these things, but, just like our own (hypocritical) government, they have no intention of actually addressing them.
Drat - left out a word:
ReplyDeleteAnd how, exactly, are we supposed to do that?
The all-volunteer army was done as a response to the Vietnam War's unpopularity. But it has turned out to be a mistake for three major reasons. One, we can't afford it -- ultimately, you can't pay people enough to get shot at. Two, as personnel costs take up an ever-larger portion of the budget, we can only affort new weapons in ever-smaller quantitie -- thus, we are undergoing structural disarmament. And third, without a draft, Adminsistrations feel less constrained in the use of military forece, and in the length of time forces are disposed -- does anyone believe that if the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns were being fought with draftees, that America's mothers and fathers would tolerate these never-ending conflicts?
ReplyDeleteHere's what we voters need to do if we want to fix this mess.
ReplyDeleteA blog-campaign to write in Jon Stewart for president in 2012 would suit me just fine.