Analysis of the Military In A Democarcy
This is an excellent article looking at what kind of wars a Democracy is good at fighting. It also examines the military relationship to elite class in a society.
Liberal democratic societies have commonly been defended by conservative military establishments whose members may lack the social graces of the cosmopolitan classes they protect. Such a conservative American military now has a particularly thankless task, however. Much of what it does abroad is guarding sea lanes and training troops of fledgling democracies, helping essentially to provide the security armature for an emerging global civilization. But the more that civilization evolves—with its own mass media, non-governmental organizations and professional class—the less credit and sympathy it grants to the American troops who at times risk their lives for it. Irony is stock-and-trade for sophisticated wit, of course. But it cannot forever obscure the contradiction between the functions of an effective warrior class and the unwillingness of those functions’ beneficiaries to support its warriors. I cannot remember how many times a soldier or marine told me that we don’t want to be pitied as victims, but respected as fighters. That respect is not abundant, which brings us to an especially sharp practical edge of what our forgetfulness has wrought.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Yes, the soldiers fighting in Iraq now are treated with SO MUCH less respect by the american people than the soldiers who fought in Vietnam 40 years ago. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“Sun-Tzu, concerned with war on the highest strategic level, affirms that the greatest warrior is one who calculates so well that he never needs to fight.”
Whereas Bush will go to pre-emptive war based on poor intelligence and lies. And then give no-bid contracts to incompetent and potentially law breaking corporations. but i digress.
I feel that this article did capture the fact that America does not have the spirit for these wars that it has had in the past, but I think the reasoning is flawed. It is not that Americans do not believe in America, but rather we believe in it more than our government. We do not see some psychotic religious fundamentalists from the Middle East as a real threat to our freedom or national security. Yes, they can bomb our country on a very small scale, but so can our own citizens (oklahoma city). Islamic Fundamentalism is only a real threat to our freedom if we let fear make us blind and stupid, if we let the government scare us into giving up our rights.
Logic and intelligence did not get us into Iraq, blind fear got us there. Against all real evidence we assumed Saddam was planning an attack, so we had to do something about it. And now our military is overstretched and essentially stuck in a giant mess of our own design (or lack thereof).
But if you are curious as to why Americans may not believe in our government’s military actions, i would submit that it is because our government has not been acting American. Pre-emptive war against countries who mean us no harm (and have no capability to bring harm) is not American. Taking away our 4th amendment rights in the name of ‘National Security’ is not American. Running massive deficits to pay for an idiotic war is not American. Forcing democracy on people is not American. I could go on.
But i hope you see what i am saying. I know I didn’t really address the exerpt you chose, but I found other parts of the article much more engaging.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
The majority would disagree. Bush was reelected in based in large part with a platform of dealing fundamentalism Islamic terrorist.
Everyone and their Mom thought Saddam had WMD or at least was credible enough threat to warrant action. This was in large part due to the intelligence reports and Saddam’s rather suicidal behavior.
Odd. A Compelling argument that our leaders act in a fashion that is consistent with what you define as American can be given. Our action was preemptive but it meets your criteria that our enemy did mean us harm. Certainly after the first war in Iraq it you would be hard pressed to argue that Saddam did not mean us harm. You might fall back on the argument that he lacked the capacity to do harm. Easy to say that now knowing he did not have the WMD he potentially could of handed to a terrorist cell to nuke one of our cities. Turns out Iraq did us harm and given what we knew at the time, arguably had the ability to harm us. By your own definition this country preemptive strike was very much American.
Ultimately, I find the author of the article post more compelling then your analysis.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“Bush was reelected in based in large part with a platform of dealing fundamentalism Islamic terrorist. ”
Then you are afraid that Islamic Fundamentalism is going to destroy our country?
“Everyone and their Mom thought Saddam had WMD or at least was credible enough threat to warrant action. ”
No. First Bush assumed Saddam had WMDs, then from all the pieces of evidence collected by our various intelligence agencies he picked the 2 or 3 that supported his story. Then the idiot media picked up on the idea, then everyone and their mom (except for me and my mom) thought Saddam was a threat.
“Certainly after the first war in Iraq it you would be hard pressed to argue that Saddam did not mean us harm…Turns out Iraq did us harm and given what we knew at the time, arguably had the ability to harm us. ”
I remember Iraq attacked Kuwait. Is Kuwait American soil now? i must have missed that.
“You might fall back on the argument that he lacked the capacity to do harm. Easy to say that now knowing he did not have the WMD he potentially could of handed to a terrorist cell to nuke one of our cities.”
UN Weapons inspectors did not find evidence of WMDs. Upon returning from Niger Joseph Wilson reported that CIA reoprts of Iraq’s attempts to get yellowcake uranium were “unequivocally wrong.”
Later that year (2002), when Iraq acquired high strength aluminum tubes, Bush made the case that they could be used to enrich uranium. The Department of Energy (the department that actually knows how to enrich uranium) disagreed. Yet this was used as evidence that Saddam was attempting to create a nuclear weapon.
Bush and Cheney also had no problem alluding to a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, despite a complete lack of evidence or facts.
Then America went to war.
So, Steve, is this what you call ‘American?’
December 17th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Everyone and their Mom thought Saddam had WMD or at least was credible enough threat to warrant action.”
I didn’t think that, and neither did my mom. Maybe if you formed your own opinions instead of blithely trusting bloodthirsty pundits, you wouldn’t have thought that either.