SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Steve Blair]

I would offer that the military has never been as quite apolitical as presumed by the general public, and although in the past military leadership has been more outspoken, today such public display is not practical nor desirable. Defense assets constitute approximately 70% of all federal property. We all know the immense size of the budget and the profit (and waste) of defense companies. Both parties are a part of this system. Prominent members of Congress have millions invested into these contractors. Senior leaders often retire to join the ranks of these companies as consultants and advisers. What need is there for a public display of politics when the military is complicit in the biggest play in town? Politicking and profiteering might be tolerable were it not directly resulting in the slow decline of America's ability to defend itself.

The military is in need of substantial reform. I believe that inviting the participation of the American public in that reform would deliver the most desirable outcomes. The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities. I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

And again none of this is new. Military officers commonly transitioned into profitable slots before the rise of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" (which was in no small part a direct outcome of HIS defense policies), and I could name any number of "outbreaks" and "outrages" on the Frontier during that period that were either manufactured or exaggerated by locals who wanted to profit from a military presence in their region. Contracting graft is nothing new.

If you broaden your horizon from a Cold War focus, you start to see just how many cycles there are in American history.

[MikeF]

And again none of this is new.

And the Native Americans didn't get much choice or freedom as we pushed them into reservations.

[Steve Blair]

And the Native Americans didn't get much choice or freedom as we pushed them into reservations.

Nor did the Cheyenne when the Sioux pushed them out of the Black Hills. Or the smaller tribes that were absorbed by the Aztecs to our south. There are precious few "good guys" in history. It's mostly a collection of gray (good intentions mixed with bad outcomes, or in some cases the reverse), with a few sparkling despots thrown in for good measure.

In terms of the military, we've been here before. Many times. And again we have a chance to change or break the cycle. The question remains...will we do so? Even when we were "isolationist," we tended to intervene if we thought it was in our interest to do so. The size of the military never really hindered this effort (and it accelerates if you view the western expansion as an actual conflict instead of some Oregon Trail-based migration). In fact, I'd contend that some of our best interventions (at least from a short term policy standpoint) were conducted with that smaller military.

[MikeF]

Nor did the Cheyenne when the Sioux pushed them out of the Black Hills. Or the smaller tribes that were absorbed by the Aztecs to our south. There are precious few "good guys" in history. It's mostly a collection of gray (good intentions mixed with bad outcomes, or in some cases the reverse), with a few sparkling despots thrown in for good measure.

In terms of the military, we've been here before. Many times. And again we have a chance to change or break the cycle. The question remains...will we do so? Even when we were "isolationist," we tended to intervene if we thought it was in our interest to do so. The size of the military never really hindered this effort (and it accelerates if you view the western expansion as an actual conflict instead of some Oregon Trail-based migration). In fact, I'd contend that some of our best interventions (at least from a short term policy standpoint) were conducted with that smaller military.

If I can recommend one time in World/US History to study right now, it's 1866-1916

[Steve Blair]

If I can recommend one time in World/US History to study right now, it's 1866-1916

Exactly. That's been one of my foci for some years now. There are many similarities between what we found in Afghanistan and what we found in Arizona (in general terms at least), and there are other social similarities as well.

[MikeF]

Exactly. That's been one of my foci for some years now. There are many similarities between what we found in Afghanistan and what we found in Arizona (in general terms at least), and there are other social similarities as well.

I know. You're the one who told me to look there three years ago

[Steve Blair]

I know. You're the one who told me to look there three years ago

Yep. I'm a bit of a single-track record sometimes...