War and History

[selenite0]

balthial wrote:
I'm not sure I totally agree with you historically, though. Britain is a rare exception. Germany won was the aggressor in almost every war it fought post Napoleon, and they always mobilized highly. France probably suffered more from Napoleon's wars than they did when Germany invaded them in 1870.

The historical level of sacrifice does vary. It partly depends on your definition of sacrifice for "the rest of us." Most wars are small enough that only the standing army is involved and the population hardly notices them (granted, these are the small ones that the history books skip over). The impacts scale up from there to increased taxes, shortages of goods, mass conscription, having bombs dropped on you, and having enemy troops come to your home. The last generally only happens to the losers of wars. Winners can see any or all of the rest of the list but few wars have major strains on the winner's society. Viet Nam was fought without putting any of those demands on the US.

Wait, rereading your post....why is "offense" associated with "winning"? I wouldn't say the aggressive party wins a unusually high percentage of wars.

The aggressor may lose, but not until the other side takes the offensive. Staying on defense can buy you time for the enemy to weaken, but if the attacker keeps trying he'll eventually find a way through the defenses. The way to win is to smash the other side, either by occupation or breaking its will. Keeping the offensive also means avoiding the damage from having foreign troops on your own soil. We won the Cold War on the strategic defensive because the Soviet system destroyed itself. There's not many other examples of that working.

It seems pretty wrong to me, it seems like we should all share the sacrifice if there's going to be any sacrifice.

Fighting our enemies has become a privilege reserved for the best of us. I'm not going to be called up to fight unless we get invaded by aliens. There's no way to equally share a task best done by specialists.

Comments

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't exactly call us specialists... we're more like the guys who were dumb / crazy / idealistic enough to sign up for the gig. It doesn't take long to get to my level of training. In ww2 the men fighting that one had been training in england or the states for quite a while before the wars start. They were all normal average joes like yourself before the conditioning and training process turned them into soldiers. So yes, with proper motivation you could fight and do it on par with anyone else who has gone through the training before you.

the thing is that there aren't all that many people who are motivated to do so. Why go to war for anything when you can sit back and watch others do it on CNN for you.

-DS
"Live from Baghdad"

[technomom]

The "Live from Baghdad" part got to me. I wish you the best.

My father and both of his brothers went into the military at 16 (it was permitted then, with parental signatures) to get enough to eat. Daddy and Uncle Al came out of the Marines with training that has been useful throughout their lives. Uncle Jimmy's career was the Army. (Uncle Al was a career Marine invalided out due to arthritic knees, though he fought to stay in.)

Anyway, they went in very young, and they were lean, hungry, and mean but fairly healthy at arrival. I'm a 37-year-old disabled fat lady. There's no way, short of a body transplant, that I could be turned into the soldiers they were. I don't truly believe that my partner could be turned into a soldier, either, for various reasons. I know from experience that I'll fight without hesitation if attacked or if someone with me is attacked. I can shoot quite well. That's not enough to be a soldier, though.

In any case, I am damned grateful that there are people willing and able to do what I can't. I don't always agree with the wars in which our country engages, but I respect and honor the individuals who fight them.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'm referring to "specialists" as opposed to having a conscript/militia system where guys come in for a year and then go back to civilian life. There's always some new guys but in my experience it's the lifers who make the system work.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree with that. The US has won almost every war its fought, but it didn't have a professional, army until after WWII. Well, maybe at a few moments during the 19th century that I'm not sufficently informed about.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Every war until Iraq I was fought with conscripts gathered into scratch formations. And they were full of major f***-ups. That's how "SNAFU" and "FUBAR" were coined. Both Iraq wars have gone much more effeciently because we have people who've trained together in their jobs for a long time before going to war. They may not be "specialists" in terms of having specific rare skills. But the level of team formation that gave us these successes requires people who stick with it, not ones coming off the street.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

But these are people off the street! They're just 18 year olds with a lot of training. That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with being a *volunteer* army. Furthermore, I think they'd do better with more training in relevant culture and language skills before they got there. Why didn't they get it?

I'm not sure I'd say Iraq went smoothly. To the extent that it did, I think it might have been because of our overwhelming technological and morale superiority.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

But these are people off the street! They're just 18 year olds with a lot of training.

Hardly. Only 17% of the Army is 20 or younger. (http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY03ArmyProfileWebVs.pdf) It's that majority of long-service volunteers that make it work so well. Diluting them with more teenagers would weaken the force.

I think they'd do better with more training in relevant culture and language skills before they got there.

They did get some. daveamongus got a very intensive training course. The problem is all of that has to come out of staying-alive-in-combat training time. If we had years and years to prepare, sure, but the real world doesn't allow unlimited preparation.

I'm not sure I'd say Iraq went smoothly.

I keep hearing people say that. Is there any war in history that went more smoothly while covering that much territory?

I think it might have been because of our overwhelming technological and morale superiority.

Effective use of tech and high morale are a result of specialized troops.

[oilhistorian.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's become a "privlilege" reserved for the poorest of us -- the ones who can't afford college any other way. Ask Jessica Lynch -- the only reason she joined the Army was so she sould use the college credits to become a kindergarten teacher. I can point out the same for dozens of my students at A&M and VT -- almost every one of my students who had prior military service or who was in the Guard had enlisted as much b/c of the money as b/c of the chance to serve. And a lot of those at VT were upset that their unit was being mobilized for Afghanistan, interrupting their education. These are mostly rural (and Republican) kids, by the way. They reflect the current military -- mostly rural, mostly Republican.

And those "specialists" patrolling in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't Eleven-Bravos -- they're truck drivers, artillerists (like one of my friend's sons), and clerks. They're aren't enough troops in the Army with 11B as their MOS at the moment.

[technomom]

I honestly think that military service (as enlisted men) has always been largely for the poorest parts of the population. Historically, officers came from the gentry, especially when the individual was responsible for outfitting himself. They were serving voluntarily, most of the time, from what I know.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Well, most officers are from the "gentry". My mom was a factory worker, but that's on the low end for officers in my experience.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

The "poorest" generally are refused enlistment because of poor education or health. The overwhelming majority of the enlisted folks I've met are from middle class backgrounds.

[oilhistorian.livejournal.com]

Only if you define middle class as blue collar. Middle class, by and large, means white collar these days. Most Americans have a rather weird definition of "middle class" -- their definition encompasses both working class and upper class (I've yet to have a student at either A&M or VT say they weren't middle class unless they hailed from a colonia or an inner-city slum. People from $250,000 income-households aren't middle class.

Take a look at the Marines -- awful lot of "poor" folk enlist there.

And the poorest aren't refused said enlistment when the ranks need to be filled -- as they were in the mid-'70s through the early '80s.

And whether they're middle class or not, they still ain't "specialists" ....

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Let's visit salary.com.

Assistant Professor: $60,000
Machinist with four+ years experience: $50,000

Not to mention machinists have better job security. So I consider blue collar to be solidly middle class, more middle class than all those English majors working at Starbucks.

Reserved?

[p-o-u-n-c-e-r.livejournal.com]

It's sort of strikes me as odd to read of so many elite institutions of higher learning working so hard to prevent ROTC or recruiting among the well-born, the well-connected, the wealthy, the clever, the well-read, the rational, the cosmopolitan, and well grounded in the "liberal arts" (in the traditional sense of that word:the skills needed by free men to contribute to a free society); the journalists, the film makers, the sociologists and political scientists -- thus leaving the burden of defense to the engineers and agronomists of Land Grant schools. Then we read of demographers, economists, and historians (at the former group of universities) who bemoan that the military culture has become more rural, more conservative, more mercenary, more Republican, more religious ...

What was the EXPECTED outcome of turning so many campuses into cloisters?

Some, not all, of those concerned with the problem propose to help the military become, once again, more diverse and representative of the population at large by re-instating the draft. Some young persons, perforce, SHALL carry rich, urban, liberal viewpoints into the Army -- willy nilly.

Better, I think, to raise the pay.

War News

[oilhistorian.livejournal.com]

I'll also point out that it's not a function of winners/losers or even mobilizing the population. It's a function of technology. Mass literacy was primarily a nineteenth-century phenomenon and that's when people started paying attention to the war news, largely b/c they now had the mass media with which to pay attention to the war news. The Sepoy Mutiny was widely covered in Britain in the 1850s, as was the total massacre of the first Afghan expedition in the late 1840s. In neither case was the population mobilized (most of the troops involved in both campaigns were Indian, not British). The various African campaigns (Kitchener, Gordon, the Boer War, the Zulu Wars) were also widely covered. Indeed, the populace demanded the coverage (they were proud of their empire, remember?). Ditto for the Franco-Prussian War (on both sides) and the Indian Wars in the US. War correspondents were household names long before WWI, having cut their teeth in Africa, China, Latin America, and the Spanish-American War. Harper's made its fortune off the Civil War.

Re: War News

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I don't see how getting fresh news counts as a sacrifice on the part of the population.

Re: War News

[oilhistorian.livejournal.com]

balthial: I think its pretty easy to avoid the war news, actually. There's really not that much news about it. We're fighting a very strange sort of war; where the President says we're at war, and soldiers are out on active duty, but for the rest of us, there's really not that much change. It seems pretty wrong to me, it seems like we should all share the sacrifice if there's going to be any sacrifice.

selenite: That's actually pretty normal for wars, at least for the winners. WW I/II was an exception in mobilizing the entire population. Since WWII the US has fought several wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq I) and lots of invasions/raids/police actions (Panama, Haiti, etc, etc) without a full mobilization. Great Britain conquered a good chunk of the world without mobilizing the nation either.

The losers of wars do most of the sacrificing. That's why I want to stay on offense.

me:
Actually, winners do most of the sacrificing -- though not in blood. It costs money. There was a great deal of support for, interest in, and willingness to pay the (fiscal) price on the part of the US in the 19th and early 20th century and Britain up through 1945. The wars where the US was not willing to do so (VN, Korea) were also the wars that lacked broad popular support. Even Ike thought Korea was a mistake. VN is, ironically, the only one of these wars that had extensive media coverage -- and even that was really only a post-1965 phenomenon.

There was a great deal of interest in and willingness to pay the price in other US colonial wars that is distinctly lacking in this one. Look at how little coverage Afghanistan is getting vis a vis other wars. The only reason it's even 9on the front page of the local paper is that the local NG division is there. The biggest news story from Afghanistan so far has been Tillman's death. Pick up any 19th century newsweekly and you'll see a far different message.

Re: War News

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Actually, winners do most of the sacrificing -- though not in blood. It costs money.

Hmmm. Winner: Homes intact, some sons lost, higher taxes. Loser: Homes burnt, whole families wiped out, national infrastructure shattered. Okay, I am totally unable to comprehend what you're saying here. By what definition of "sacrifice" do the winners do more?

Re: War News

[p-o-u-n-c-e-r.livejournal.com]

Cart or Horse?

My limited reading of history suggests that the "public" sentiment on wars tends to be led by media at least as much as elected policy makers or the actual events of the war.

The whole "Remember the Maine" public interest in, outcry over, and support for the Spanish American war was driven by, rather than reflected in, media competition by Hurst and Pulitzer chains. Hurst is infamous for wiring journalist at Cuba -- "You take the pictures, I'll provide the war."

On the other side of events, the late 60's Cronkite-TV-journalism view of war, led to oddities as the "Tet Offensive" being widely regarded as a US/South Vietnamese defeat.

Live interviews between desk anchors in New York to field reporters in Kabul or Baghdad about events in Waziristan and Najaf are just MIND BOGGLING to me. I can't imagine Ernie Pyle holed up in a hotel in Casablanca, sipping wine and eating baguettes, critizing Patton, bemoaning that Henri Giraud still was never awarded a command, telling the folks back home that Rommel had our forces bogged down in a quagmire in Tunisia -- and wondering aloud if FDR had forgotten that HIROHITO was the real enemy?

[balthial.livejournal.com]

Hey, sorry it took me a while to respond to this. I read your comment posting this thread, then I put it aside to go do something and forgot about it for a few days.

First of all, I'd say there can be a lot of suffering in an offensive war, or a war that was won. The US did a ton of suffering in Vietnam and WWII. Not as much as the other sides did, but its not significant.

Second of all, an offensive war can become a defensive war in a big hurry. Germany and Japan started out by invading France and China, and ended up in absolute ruins. You attack someone, they attack back, and they frequently bring friends. I would argue that the terrorist attacks are largely the result of our pseudoImperialist actions in the post WWII era. We went around meddling in all sorts of shit we didn't understand. Whether our activities in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Korea, and so forth were well intioned and humanitarian or greeddy and imperliastic is something for the scholars to discuss. But the US Government pissed people off, and US victims of terrorism paid with their lives.

I'm not sure how to deal with all this now. I'm certainly not advocating we go over there and smoke hash with bin Laden. But I think we need a plan that involves living as a more peaceful country. Coming up with a good excuse to get our armies outside of Israel and the Muslim world would be a good start. I would move on to apologize to Vietnam, make a formal peace with North Korea, and generally behave with a little bit of humility. I'm proud of my country and glad we're the greater superpower in the world. I just don't think its in our interests to flaunt our power.

That's my opinion on strategy. Here's my thoughts on sacrifice:

I don't mean that we should all be drafted. There are other sorts of sarficies we could make. Higher taxes, to pay for the war, would be a start. Right now, we're fighting the war with loans, and that's not a good idea. A plan to completly eliminate US dependance on foreign oil within 30 years would be good too. Giving up your SUV for the US isn't much of a sacrifice, really. Third, he could get schools to teach more classes in world history and culture. I'm at the University of Chicago, where we have a fucking ton of people taking courses in various Social Sciences. Most of them couldn't tell you the first thing about the Muslim world. Would it be too much to ask them to drop sociology and anthropology in favor of something more practical? Most importantly, why isn't Bush asking us to do *something*. He's the President, he needs to get out there like FDR or Churchill and inspire the people.

And lastly, how come no one in the government is pushing any orginal or clever ideas? The US government has thousands of analysts and millions of dollars. Orr people are fairly well educated, and willing to help fight terrorism. Our technology crossed the line into "Science fiction"y territory years ago. I expect something a little more clever than an invasion force. I'm not a pacifist, I think invasion forces have their place. But again, we need to do a lot more. That will take sacrifice from citizens, it will take sacrifice from politicians who put their careers on the line espousing unpopular ideas, and it will take some cleverness and orginality. I like to think the US is up to it, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

an offensive war can become a defensive war in a big hurry.

Yep. For Osama the switch took about a month.

But the US Government pissed people off, and US victims of terrorism paid with their lives.

That's something I completely disagree with. Al Qaeda and their like are a lot more pissed about Americans being rich while they're poor and Hollywood corrupting their children then they are about any US Gov't decision. So trying to disengage wouldn't help a bit, it would encourage them. More detail on that here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/selenite/53556.html?thread=109364#t109364).

Most importantly, why isn't Bush asking us to do *something*. He's the President, he needs to get out there like FDR or Churchill and inspire the people.

I think asking people to support invading Iraq is the limit to what he's capable of asking for. I'd be all for more sacrifice, especially encouraging people to be involved as Arabic scholars or home militia.

how come no one in the government is pushing any orginal or clever ideas?

Heh--that I can speak as an authority on. I'm an aerospace engineer working on government contracts. "Original and clever" translates as "career destroying" in the civil service. If it turns out to be a bad idea, you're the scapegoat. If it turns out to be a good idea, you get attacked by everybody whose budget depended on the old idea that's being replaced. New ideas come from outside the government and get adopted when they're proven.

it will take sacrifice from politicians who put their careers on the line espousing unpopular ideas

That's what Dubya's doing, we'll see how he does. Making democracy in Iraq a strategic goal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/selenite/50583.html?thread=108439#t108439) hasn't turned out to be very popular, even if I think it is the best way to win the war.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

That's something I completely disagree with. Al Qaeda and their like are a lot more pissed about Americans being rich while they're poor and Hollywood corrupting their children then they are about any US Gov't decision

Maybe we shouldn't be so rich? If we tried to structure the world economy in a way that were more fair; or at least removed some of the worst abuses, I think people would hate us less. And I don't think we should disengage from Al Qaeda, that's a legitimate target. But we could disengage from some other spots in the world, most notably Palestine.


I think asking people to support invading Iraq is the limit to what he's capable of asking for.

If that's the limit of his ablities, then he's not up to the job. (BTW, I'm not saying that Bush is stupid or incompetant. Its just that there are better people out there.)

"Original and clever" translates as "career destroying" in the civil service

Then, maybe the sacrifice asked of civil servants is "be prepared to risk your career."

That's what Dubya's doing, we'll see how he does. Making democracy in Iraq a strategic goal hasn't turned out to be very popular, even if I think it is the best way to win the war.

I'm more pessimistic about W's motivations on this one. But yeah, I hope the situation in Iraq works out well.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Maybe we shouldn't be so rich? If we tried to structure the world economy in a way that were more fair; or at least removed some of the worst abuses, I think people would hate us less.

Reducing Americans to poverty would make us less hated--somebody else would become richest country and draw all the fire. But I'm not letting anybody do that to my kids.

The current approach is to help the rest of the world get richer. Individual Iraqis could never get rich from their own efforts, the government would steal anything they managed to accumulate. Afghanis were kept poor by bandits and warlords. If we can give them peace and democracy they'll have a chance to find prosperity through their own efforts.

But we could disengage from some other spots in the world, most notably Palestine.

The US doesn't have troops there. Or does that translate as "sell out Israel"?

If that's the limit of his ablities, then he's not up to the job.

I think he's hit the limit of his political capital. Getting public and international support for the war took everything the administration had. That left nothing for mobilizing the public or suppressing the State/Defense battles over the post-war plans.

maybe the sacrifice asked of civil servants is "be prepared to risk your career."

Those kinds of people rarely go into the civil service.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

Reducing Americans to poverty would make us less hated--somebody else would become richest country and draw all the fire. But I'm not letting anybody do that to my kids.

There's a big difference between "Where America is Now" and "Poverty". I think America is currently in a state of overwhelming wealth. (albeit, overwhelming wealth distributed very badly.) Saying we can't do with anything less than what we have strikes me as greed, pure and simple. A rich man living next to poor men is under constant threat of attack, and that's how its always been. The difference is that transportation and communication have redefined what "living next to" means.

The US doesn't have troops there[In Israel]

We give a ton of military aid to Israel. The world knows it, and is holding us partially accountable for what Israel does. I don't think they're out of line.

Or does that translate as "sell out Israel"?

Israel isn't special. I think Israel has a right to exist, and I hate terrorism and all that. But why should I care more about Israel than I do about, say, the Sudanese refugee crises? I can't help but think that there's a certain amount of "selective outrage" going on almost any time people talk about Israel.

I think he's hit the limit of his political capital.

Someone else could have had more political capital. Its the most powerful elected office on the planet. Standards are high.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Saying we can't do with anything less than what we have strikes me as greed, pure and simple.

Oh, we could survive, sure. But I'd much rather bring other people up than pull America down. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

why should I care more about Israel than I do about, say, the Sudanese refugee crises?

The world needs all the democracies it can get.

Someone else could have had more political capital.

Someone else would have had the same problems. I have this vision of Bush walking along dragging a protestor holding onto his ankle with both hands . . . while the protestor yells "Why aren't you running faster!"

[balthial.livejournal.com]

American prosperity is not exportable to the rest of the world, or even sustainable in the long term. Its built on, among other things, A) Structural budget deficets B)large use of environmental resources and C)the low wage labor of other countries.

Besides which, why the hell does anyone need as much prosperity as we have?

The world needs all the democracies it can get.

I think that's the reason. The US has supported too many fascist governments over the years for that to be credible.


Someone else would have had the same problems

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

pardon me, I meant "I don't think that's the real reason", in reference to Israel.