The Tragedy of the American Military by James Fallows, The Atlantic
The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win…
Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.
The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe…
Comments
I think a fair challenge to your observations, sir, is that those approval ratings you cite represent the views of many Americans who are not intimately acquainted with the military. If I remember the article from The Atlantic accurately, it acknowledge the fact that with the small size of the all-volunteer military, post-'91 (Cold War drawdown), and with a statistically miniscule number of Americans serving in uniform, many Americans are not acquainted with many (or possibly any) active or prior military folks, nor do they have much exposure to the military as an organization. A common observation at sites like SWJ and <A HREF="https://www.facebook.com/DoctrineMan">Doctrine Man</A> is that this disconnect isn't good for the military or for the rest of society, in part because it breeds an entitlement mentality in our veterans and a sort of soldier-as-superhero fantasy with non-veterans. (I've seen an uncomfortably large cross section of Internet-commenting veterans citing this low rate of military service as evidence of their own superiority to the disengaged masses, simultaneously ignoring the fact that if one hundred percent of Americans tried to enlist, 99+% of them would be turned away because that's how few billets Washington has authorized them to fill.)
I've worked, interacted, and socialized with either active or veteran military folks my entire adult life. The truth is that they're a cross section of society: there are intelligent, courageous, motivated folks, and there are incompetent, cowardly, lazy folks, and every combination thereof, and an entire spectrum in between. Some of the people I've respected most in the world have come from America's military ranks, and so have some of the people I'd most like to see set on fire. The American military both draws and cultivates some specific personality types that manifest both profound strengths and critical weaknesses. It's an organization that produces geniuses, like General James Mattis, and charlatans, like Senator John Walsh; heroes, like Michael Murphy, and criminals, like Charles Graner. That spectrum isn't typically reflected in polls of Americans whose exposure to the military consists entirely of detached hero worship, rather than any substantive exposure.
The other blindingly obvious observation is that the military's lead in American polls of respect and trustworthiness are relative to other government entities that Americans have more exposure to, so it's not surprising that those entities are rated extremely low and that there's a corresponding percentage spread as a result. Despite the fact that America's only outright military triumphs since 1945 have been engagements of extremely limited scope, should we really be surprised that the military still soundly trumps organizations like DHS, the IRS, or Congress in national approval ratings?
If the Editors of the SWJ would like, I'll spend some time digging up the polling on "trustworthiness", "reliability", and etc. of the US Public vis a vis all the various Public Institutions that make up the U.S. Or you, unlike the editors of The Atlantic, could simply have your fact checkers look up those same polls and data themselves.
What you'll find is that the U.S. military is overwhelmingly considered the most respected and trustworthy Public Institution in America, and has the highest Public approval rating by a huge margin.
Are there problems within the US Military? Of course. Would the brass like to broaden it's recruit pool, especially for Officers, to include a number of regions within the US that are not well represented (or AS well represented) as is considered ideal? Of course. But all things given, The Atlantic's readers might consider the US military from Mars… as their readership demographic is from Metrosexual Venus, but it's editorial bias isn't something to lose sleep over.
In the last several years I've been undertaking a gig that's given me a much greater insight into the grassroots US military community (American Legion Posts are in just about every County in America)… The editors of The Atlantic and their serious readers, should worry MORE about what the guys (and gals) at the Legion Posts think of THEM, than vice versa.
Si Vis Pacem para Bellum.
Sincerely,
A. Scott Crawford
One of the comments on the main post (Atlantic, James Fallows) stated we should bring back the draft to curb the dominance of Southern Evangelicals over our nation's military. Religion is something that the article never touches. This caused me to consider that 78% of the population professes a Christian Faith. Why wouldn't 78% of the population have some influence? I believe that our military, with its social engineering, has much to do with a divide. And, 78% of the population feels they have limited influence. Admiral Mullins stated "I would sacrifice some of that excellence and readiness to make sure that we stay close to the American people." When the issues of gays and gay marriage are introduced into service, the military will not stay close to the majority of the American people and are out of touch. The military will retrain 78% and require that group to tolerate the practices of 2%. Those who would not adjust to the training, which is opposed to their religious values, have no future in our military. This is also the case for those who would oppose women in combat units. This is a purge. When older veterans and a majority of the population will not encourage their sons and daughters to serve, our military gets a different type of man or woman. It appears that our senior leaders would like most to go to church, but after that, just be quiet.
Avoiding a "martial caste" at the same time as having a professional post-industrial force is going to be a tough one. In a sense it is the same problem as having a professional pre-industrial force. Without the need for mass the martial life becomes reserved for a selected few (often self-selected). The shared experiences, which are also apart from civil society and by an large can't be replicated in civil society, will create a community. That community will develop interests. And if that community is foreign to the rest of society then it will be misunderstood and it will see its interests not well represented, creating incentive for push back and power hoarding. It's interesting that even though in the Constitution the power of the commander in chief was given to the President, the power to raise and regulate the military rests with the Congress. An interesting approach the founders took to ensure the military didn't stray too far from popular will and scrutiny.
Painful to read. I heard recently that Guardsman structure their private lives around hopeful opportunities for deployment! Of course, there are many reasons for this, but it would have been unheard of in my Dad's day. The appeal to integrate into the Praetorian elite, for all the vital and moral goodness it represents, in distinction from the economically impoverished and morally bankrupt society they come from is ominous. But you see it in the solidly middle class safe and secure lives built up inside the wire, for whole like-minded families. But I never saw Plato's Republic as an ideal. So, I say these things with a tinge of concerned sarcasm.
Thanks for sharing a little bit of your story. It sounds like your caught between two worlds, and as such your proof that these are two distinct worlds we are dealing with. I think a lot of that is just the end result of general trends in our society. We really aren't allowed to say the wrong thing anymore. Error is increasingly treated as a moral failing anywhere politics is involved, and there are those among us to whom everything is political. Its making conversation with anyone not like you intimidating, but its people that aren't like us who we often learn from.
Then there's the problem of troops serving in what are pretty unpopular wars. That doesn't mean those critics don't care about our troops, but (true or not) the Vietnam related narrative of spitting on troops and calling then "baby killers" hangs heavy overhead. Then there are those hawks who try to paint anyone less gung ho than they are as troop haters, and then there's always that one a hole who is a jerk to a vet and gives the narrative power.
Before I ramble on too long, I will say that I personally find the divide to be very hard. I think we all do. I suffer from PTSD, yet I find the gap too big for even that to be common ground with most vets my age (30), despite the prevalence of that condition. I had the hardest time even saying "PTSD" for a long time, because that's a thing soldiers get, and I'm not a soldier. Its just funny, and sad, to me that I'm that worried about being mistaken for a soldier, its something so far away. I wonder if all this talk of "heroes" has dehumanized people. If I was talked about like that, I'd be insecure about it, and I'd probably act superior just not to feel inferior. Not that that's common, I just know how trauma and insecurity make human interaction really difficult sometimes.
Thanks again
Thanks for the reply. You make some really good points. That's not to say that civilians like myself are all going to add that much to every conversation, but we may, even in error, help those that do serve think things through (explaining someone why they are wrong can be insightful, and teaching can teach the teacher). Even if we don't add anything to the conversation, we may take something away from it, and more people having more knowledge can't hurt the national debate, and it may help us be more understanding towards our service people and veterans.
Of course, none of that works if we just agree for the sake of agreeing, or out of deference to anyone in uniform.
Bill M.: Agreed on all points, save two. First, I've only ever heard of Julian Corbett and am not familiar with any of his actual work, so I'm unable to concur on that point, though I suspect we'd agree if I were; that said, I'll provide alternative examples of Albert Wohlstetter and Henry Kissinger. Second, I've met few if any officers who are actually familiar with Clausewitz - "all Jomini, no Clausewitz", as they say - a minor quibble, but I'll get it out there. Regardless, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe that the anti-intellectual leanings that you rightly identify, coupled with the propensity to teach senior leaders campaigning/operations planning mislabeled as strategy, is a considerable contributor to the challenges that we're currently discussing ad nauseum on the "COIN Is a Proven Failure" thread. It should be expected that policy-makers who come from diverse backgrounds will be unfamiliar with strategy, but those policy-makers must then rely upon senior or retired military officers as advisors. If those senior officers have been taught campaigning in lieu of strategy, two problems are created. First, those senior officers serving as advisors to policy-makers will be unable to provide competent advice on how to use means to enable ways to achieve a political end. Second, those senior officers serving as battlefield commanders will be unable to orchestrate the consolidation of tactical and operational successes into political/strategic ends. I think that there are a variety of ways to mitigate these hurdles, but I suspect that the services themselves would find any or all of my suggestions to that effect unpalatable.
Concur with your thoughts, and echo Dave's below. Julian Corbett is one of my favorite military theorists and he never spent a day in uniform. If you buy into the argument that the military culture is mostly anti-intellectual (Williamson Murray), then that implies fresh ideas and insights will come from outside the ranks. Throughout history many of the best insurgent strategists didn't have any formal military training. From a strategy perspective that probably helped. Those who ran the most effective UW campaigns, with Detachment 101 being an exception, generally had no training to do so. What they did have was the ability to see the world as it was (views not tainted by doctrine), and the ability to come up with an appropriate strategy to deal with it.
More and more I'm coming to the belief that military experience due to its culture and indoctrination can be more of hindrance in some aspects, so it is imperative we have an interactive dialogue between those trained and educated to serve in uniform and civilians who think deeply about security issues. Success in the military is generally founded on conforming to accepted norms, quote Clausewitz, champion COIN doctrine, etc. and you'll generally have a safe, but unproductive career.
Your comment is insightful, valuable, and shared by many (including some active duty/prior service folks). Doctrine Man posted this article, and one of the folks who commented noted that although the public are disengaged from national defense, many members of the military "tribe" actively exclude outsiders who want to bridge that gap.
I'm sort of a unique bellwether for this, as I've done my best to serve my country as a contractor after having basically failed to make it into active service. My career so closely mirrors that of my friends and peers on active duty that corporate recruiters typically can't tell whether I'm a veteran or not without asking. Despite this, I get the same responses of "you were never in the military, so you don't know" (or, worse, lengthy, ill-conceived lectures about topics on which I am legitimately an expert by active or retired troops whose career provided them with no expertise whatsoever on the subject matter in question). I've been overlooked for hiring on multiple occasions, not because I wasn't the best candidate for the job, but because the recruiter, hiring manager, or customer couldn't conceive of hiring someone who "doesn't have military experience". I say none of this to whine; far from it, as I've enjoyed a very fulfilling career, a lot of amazing experiences, and many opportunities to work with great people, active, retired, prior service, and lifelong civilians. My point, though, is that if this is the kind of treatment I get with my unique background, I can only imagine how your average plumber, or network engineer, or mechanic gets treated.
So, I think the article makes a reasonable point about public disengagement from national defense. (I also read <A HREF="http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-james-fa… item</A> noting that Fallows' article acknowledges that he dodged the draft, but intentionally omits any acknowledgment that the golden age he pines for resulted in large part from the draft, or any acknowledgment that he himself has advocated elsewhere for reinstating the draft.) But I think you (and others) make an excellent counterpoint that this is a two-way street. I'm reminded of an excellent <A HREF="http://www.heritage.org/events/2011/02/military-leadership">panel at the Heritage Foundation in 2011</A>, in which one speaker identified that the consolidation of many cross-town affiliated master's degree programs into military-operated programs had reinforced group-think and cultural insularity by absolving field grade officers of the educational requirement of working with coursemates outside the military. There are some positive developments - e.g., <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-takoma-park-a-fading-vfw-post-ge… VFW posts and other veterans' groups opening up to non-veterans</A>, but they're few and far between. I think you're right that, unfortunately, a lot of these trends are self-reinforcing.
Thank you very much for your comment, sir, and I hope we continue to see you around here.
Thank you, very much. I can't say that I'm wholly surprised by the response. As far as the internet goes, the debate I've seen here has been exemplary, making SWJ something special. I was still rather wary about posting, but I don't often feel that way, and I think that speaks to how loaded this topic is.
I always try to say something when I have something to say, and this topic put me over the edge. I had to say something. I'm really glad I did.
Thanks again.
Ratsnakerabbitsnake:
Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts. Remember that some of the world's best military leaders and strategists had no military experience (See Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command). But more importantly in our federal democratic republic every citizen has a say in going to war (if our Congress does not abdicate its responsibility to represent the people on the decisions and decision to go to war). Every citizen should be able to weigh in. And anyone who scoffs at your opinion because you have not served in the military undercuts his or her own credibility and legitimacy. You have every right to weigh in and I daresay have the responsibility to do so asa citizen. Please do express your thoughts and opinions. Our military and nation will be better for it.
V/R
Dave
I've lurked around this website on and off for years now, and as a civilian, I thought I'd register and share my perspective. Even as I write this though, I can't help but feel anxious, and I know I may just delete it.
For all the valid complaints of civilians being distant from our troops, we aren't exactly welcome in discussing these issues (unless your an elite, in which case you can be President with no military service). For one thing, "respecting" the troops is so expected, the pre packed lipservice has become something of a shibboleth. One false word and your an other who doesn't care about our men and women in uniform. Its just too easy to get "othered" out of the conversation. And we are others.
Not having served, we don't have direct experience. We aren't experts. In our credentialist technocratic culture, if you're not an expert, you're nothing. We often try to get around this barrier to discussion by quoting experts, basically relying on appeals to authority, but when it comes to the military, the military hierarchy is the authority. Whatever choice they make are, by default, the right ones.
This makes it really hard for civilians to talk about the issues the article brings up. There are other barriers, to be sure (like our love affair with futurism- try talking planes without someone wondering how we can still be making manned aircraft, like a bunch of Luddites), but our opinions just aren't welcome. You can't even quote Sprey or Lind or Boyd in many circles without their good names being dragged through the mud, what chance do the rest if us have?
I tried suggesting a middle ground in the debate on women in combat roles not too long ago. I did so on reddit, in their military section (because I welcomed people who have experience pointing out any flaws in my thinking). To say my voice wasn't welcome would be an understatement. It wasn't that they said I was wrong that made me stop trying to engage, its that they refused to tell me why I was wrong. As a civilian, it was made clear, I didn't deserve such answers, just thinking about such things made me an Armchair General, and the fact that I'd try and talk to them about it was offensive.
That may seem like a poor example, and maybe it is, but I feel the disconnect goes both ways, and as such (sadly) is self reinforcing. That's sad enough when we can't talk about practical matters, but its heart breaking to think of traumatized indivuals feeling isolated after war. We set off fire works on the 4th of July, while posting Facebook messages that "support" our troops, while the actual vets with PTSD have to deal with load, sudden explosions all around til 2 in the morning.
Could some of this distance between “John Q. Public” and the US military be removed by instituting a variation of the draft where state residents are required to serve in their National Guard units for a defined period of time (as M-Day troopers) vs. serving in the active military? This would (1) allow more people to receive training and experience needed for actual war, (2) reduce or eliminate the need of ARNG unit commanders to focus on recruiting and retention and focus instead on training and readiness, and (3) allow us to reduce the active military even more knowing that a vast pool of reserve component troops (National Guard in this case) are available if needed….an increase in available numbers & general readiness while decreasing overall costs.
I’m not a fan of a “draft”. However, a draft at the state level might close the divide between citizen and soldier as well as give us a pool of trained personnel to draw from should the need arise…..and the need may not arise as often if more citizens are tied to their military.