The Tragedy of the American Military

[Sheilbh]

A very long piece by James Fallows here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
The introduction:

The Tragedy of the American Military
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.
James Fallows
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015

In mid-September, while President Obama was fending off complaints that he should have done more, done less, or done something different about the overlapping crises in Iraq and Syria, he traveled to Central Command headquarters, at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. There he addressed some of the men and women who would implement whatever the U.S. military strategy turned out to be.

The part of the speech intended to get coverage was Obama's rationale for reengaging the United States in Iraq, more than a decade after it first invaded and following the long and painful effort to extricate itself. This was big enough news that many cable channels covered the speech live. I watched it on an overhead TV while I sat waiting for a flight at Chicago's O'Hare airport. When Obama got to the section of his speech announcing whether he planned to commit U.S. troops in Iraq (at the time, he didn't), I noticed that many people in the terminal shifted their attention briefly to the TV. As soon as that was over, they went back to their smartphones and their laptops and their Cinnabons as the president droned on.

Usually I would have stopped watching too, since so many aspects of public figures' appearances before the troops have become so formulaic and routine. But I decided to see the whole show. Obama gave his still-not-quite-natural-sounding callouts to the different military services represented in the crowd. ("I know we've got some Air Force in the house!" and so on, receiving cheers rendered as "Hooyah!" and "Oorah!" in the official White House transcript.) He told members of the military that the nation was grateful for their nonstop deployments and for the unique losses and burdens placed on them through the past dozen years of open-ended war. He noted that they were often the face of American influence in the world, being dispatched to Liberia in 2014 to cope with the then-dawning Ebola epidemic as they had been sent to Indonesia 10 years earlier to rescue victims of the catastrophic tsunami there. He said that the "9/11 generation of heroes" represented the very best in its country, and that its members constituted a military that was not only superior to all current adversaries but no less than "the finest fighting force in the history of the world."

If any of my fellow travelers at O'Hare were still listening to the speech, none of them showed any reaction to it. And why would they? This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money. A somber moment to reflect on sacrifice. Then everyone except the few people in uniform getting on with their workaday concerns.

The public attitude evident in the airport was reflected by the public's representatives in Washington. That same afternoon, September 17, the House of Representatives voted after brief debate to authorize arms and supplies for rebel forces in Syria, in hopes that more of them would fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS, than for it. The Senate did the same the next day—and then both houses adjourned early, after an unusually short and historically unproductive term of Congress, to spend the next six and a half weeks fund-raising and campaigning full-time. I'm not aware of any midterm race for the House or Senate in which matters of war and peace—as opposed to immigration, Obamacare, voting rights, tax rates, the Ebola scare—were first-tier campaign issues on either side, except for the metaphorical "war on women" and "war on coal."

This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we'd rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, "Your task will not be an easy one," because "your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened." As president, Eisenhower's most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.

At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.

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.

From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan's Heroes; McHale's Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself.

Robert Altman's 1970 movie M*A*S*H was clearly "about" the Vietnam War, then well into its bloodiest and most bitterly divisive period. (As I point out whenever discussing this topic, I was eligible for the draft at the time, was one of those protesting the war, and at age 20 legally but intentionally failed my draft medical exam. I told this story in a 1975 Washington Monthly article, "What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?") But M*A*S*H's ostensible placement in the Korean War of the early 1950s somewhat distanced its darkly mocking attitude about military competence and authority from fierce disagreements about Vietnam. (The one big Vietnam movie to precede it was John Wayne's doughily prowar The Green Berets, in 1968. What we think of as the classic run of Vietnam films did not begin until the end of the 1970s, with The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now.) The TV spin-off of Altman's film, which ran from 1972 through 1983, was a simpler and more straightforward sitcom on the Sgt. Bilko model, again suggesting a culture close enough to its military to put up with, and enjoy, jokes about it.

Let's skip to today's Iraq-Afghanistan era, in which everyone "supports" the troops but few know very much about them. The pop-culture references to the people fighting our ongoing wars emphasize their suffering and stoicism, or the long-term personal damage they may endure. The Hurt Locker is the clearest example, but also Lone Survivor; Restrepo; the short-lived 2005 FX series set in Iraq, Over There; and Showtime's current series Homeland. Some emphasize high-stakes action, from the fictionalized 24 to the meant-to-be-true Zero Dark Thirty. Often they portray military and intelligence officials as brave and daring. But while cumulatively these dramas highlight the damage that open-ended warfare has done—on the battlefield and elsewhere, to warriors and civilians alike, in the short term but also through long-term blowback—they lack the comfortable closeness with the military that would allow them to question its competence as they would any other institution's.

The battlefield is of course a separate realm, as the literature of warfare from Homer's time onward has emphasized. But the distance between today's stateside America and its always-at-war expeditionary troops is extraordinary. Last year, the writer Rebecca Frankel published War Dogs, a study of the dog-and-handler teams that had played a large part in the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason she chose the topic, she told me, was that dogs were one of the few common points of reference between the military and the larger public. "When we cannot make that human connection over war, when we cannot empathize or imagine the far-off world of a combat zone ... these military working dogs are a bridge over the divide," Frankel wrote in the introduction to her book.

It's a wonderful book, and dogs are a better connection than nothing. But ... dogs! When the country fought its previous wars, its common points of reference were human rather than canine: fathers and sons in harm's way, mothers and daughters working in defense plants and in uniform as well. For two decades after World War II, the standing force remained so large, and the Depression-era birth cohorts were so small, that most Americans had a direct military connection. Among older Baby Boomers, those born before 1955, at least three-quarters have had an immediate family member—sibling, parent, spouse, child—who served in uniform. Of Americans born since 1980, the Millennials, about one in three is closely related to anyone with military experience.

The most biting satirical novel to come from the Iraq-Afghanistan era, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain, is a takedown of our empty modern "thank you for your service" rituals. It is the story of an Army squad that is badly shot up in Iraq; is brought back to be honored at halftime during a nationally televised Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day game; while there, is slapped on the back and toasted by owner's-box moguls and flirted with by cheerleaders, "passed around like everyone's favorite bong," as platoon member Billy Lynn thinks of it; and is then shipped right back to the front.

The people at the stadium feel good about what they've done to show their support for the troops. From the troops' point of view, the spectacle looks different. "There's something harsh in his fellow Americans, avid, ecstatic, a burning that comes of the deepest need," the narrator says of Billy Lynn's thoughts. "That's his sense of it, they all need something from him, this pack of half-rich lawyers, dentists, soccer moms, and corporate VPs, they're all gnashing for a piece of a barely grown grunt making $14,800 a year." Fountain's novel won the National Book Critics Circle Award for fiction in 2012, but it did not dent mainstream awareness enough to make anyone self-conscious about continuing the "salute to the heroes" gestures that do more for the civilian public's self-esteem than for the troops'. As I listened to Obama that day in the airport, and remembered Ben Fountain's book, and observed the hum of preoccupied America around me, I thought that the parts of the presidential speech few Americans were listening to were the ones historians might someday seize upon to explain the temper of our times.

It goes on and is, I think, quite interesting and important. Though I also found this piece which discusses Fallows' draft-dodging good:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-james-fallows.html

Partly I wonder if the problem's a culture of sentimentality which is certainly something that's emerged in the UK over the military in recent years. There's a now very large charity which has really started in the last few years called Help for Heroes which sums it up and there's now televised games for amputees from the military and that sort of thing (I'm rather pleased that the Legion haven't got involved in this sort of thing, but I wish half the money was going to them). It all seems very alien and something I see as a recent shift. I was recently on holiday with a friend from a military town who now lives abroad and he said how he's noticed it more and more each time he returns.

To the extent that this sentimentality is helping ex-servicemen and their families it's entirely okay. But I also think it has that distancing effect that Fallows describes; people on podiums are inevitably a little more distant from us. I can't remember who but a retired General recently said that he was worried by it because ultimately British soldiers are doing a job which is to do whatever missions that are in Britain's interests but we're reaching a point where the general public just don't want them in harms way. Very few missions are, in their eyes, worth the cost of a hero's life - I think WW1 centenary feeds into this too. Which isn't necessarily a positive trend if we want to continue to act in the world (this is British and not something Fallows discusses).

In addition to that the government's cutting defence spending and planning a new round of cuts that would be even worse. At the same time because we're dealing with heroes, even the very medalled Generals, I don't think there's sufficient awareness or discussion of the fact that UK lost in Basra and didn't really do very well in Afghanistan - I'm not even sure if UK military figures really realise how profoundly we disappointed our allies (Jonathan Powell doesn't, he's using Northern Ireland as a model fit for all conflicts despite many Americans going a shade of puce whenever they hear the words 'berets' or 'Belfast'). I've always thought the US was slightly better at this because of the whole 'soldier-scholar' tradition, but the article makes me wonder if part of it's just a general disengagement. There's no real interest just lots of feeling. I don't know just some thoughts I had when reading it.

[Razgovory]

It's result of the Vietnam war.  There was a feeling that US soldiers were not treated properly then and ever since the military has been worshiped to try to compensate.  One of the odd consequences is that after being elevated to demi-god status, soldiers are now expected to shoulder Herculean burdens.

[derspiess]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

[CountDeMoney]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

Yes, somebody with multiple deferments would be much more convincing.

[Tonitrus]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

It's easy to hate on draft dodgers.  But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much.  Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.

[dps]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

It's easy to hate on draft dodgers.  But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much.  Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.

That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service.  I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.

[Habbaku]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves.

[CountDeMoney]

It's easy to hate on draft dodgers.  But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much.  Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.

That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service.  I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.

Yes, I would think the whole survival-in-combat thing would provide enough motivation/dedication.  That, and a much more rigorous boot camp system than exists now.

[Tonitrus]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

It's easy to hate on draft dodgers.  But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much.  Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.

That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service.  I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.

Presuming it was taken from the book/accounts of those it was based on...I remember in Band of Brothers, there was a few derogatory mentions of draftees.

But I agree.  Those who were drafted, and didn't dodge certainly likely resented those who did...that doesn't mean they'd want to share a foxhole with them.

[Jacob]

A draft dodger?  Fuck him.  Let someone else make the point.

Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves.

I have much more respect for Vietnam era draft dodgers than I do for the sons of rich men who got deferments or safe deployments through connections in the same period.

[CountDeMoney]

Tonitrus has to dig twice as much for his foxholes.  Keeps his legs in the other one.

[Tonitrus]

It's easy to hate on draft dodgers.  But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much.  Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.

That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service.  I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.

Yes, I would think the whole survival-in-combat thing would provide enough motivation/dedication.  That, and a much more rigorous boot camp system than exists now.

I'm no Siege, but I'd think the "I am just trying to survive" mentality doesn't work well for a successful combat op.

Among many volunteers (perhaps more in special ops), there probably is very much more of a "kick ass/get the mission done" mentality.  You're probably right about the "I joined up to pay for college" crowd. 

[Tonitrus]

Tonitrus has to dig twice as much for his foxholes.  Keeps his legs in the other one.

I won't pretend to be anything more than a REMF.  I defend freedom with my big brain. 

[The Brain]

People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.

[Monoriu]

People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.

There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.